/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200821.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 168 Headlines 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending 6G MANAGEMENT: Collram Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA 723 EDIBLES: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Ariza Claims ACADIA PHARMA: Amended Complaint Filed in NUPLAZID Securities Suit AFFINITY INSURANCE: Johnson Breach Suit Moved to C.D. California AFFINITY MERCHANT: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Kuhnast Alleges ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Hicks' Privacy Suit Pending ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Facing Abante Rooter and Plumbing Suit ALL AMERICAN POWER: Abramson Sues Over Robocalls ALLIED INTERSTATE: Appeals Ruling in Schafer Suit to 6th Circuit ALLIED INTERSTATE: Appeals Ruling in Schafer Suit to 6th Circuit AMERICAN HONDA: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Banh Suit to 9th Cir. AMERICAN WATER: Class Certification Bid in Jeffries OK'd in Part AMERICAN WATER: Oral Argument Next Month on Bid to Dismiss "Bruce" AMPLER BURGERS: Emory Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT ANTARES PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending AT&T MOBILITY: Toler Seeks Overtime Pay for Retail Store Workers AURORA HEALTH: Eubanks Seeks to Certify Wisconsin Class BECTON DICKINSON: 19,265 Hernia Product Claims Pending BECTON DICKINSON: 2,165 Filter Product Claims Pending BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 575 Women's Health Product Claims BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Ongoing BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Appeals Ruling in Rascon Suit to 9th Cir. BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Appeals Ruling in Rascon Suit to 9th Cir. BIBI METABOLIC: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Perrone Claims BLUESTONE LANE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Boyd Suit Claims BORAL INDUSTRIES: Arbitration OK'd in Bishop Wage & Hour Suit BP AMERICA: Court in Cecil Suit Refuses to Disturb Chieftain Suit BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Souza Appeals Savino Suit Ruling to 1st Cir. BUREAU OF PRISONS: Class Certification Bid Terminated as Moot CARIBOU COFFEE: Underpays Employees, Edmonds Claims CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 7th Cir. to Hear Oral Arguments in September CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss in Matthews Class Suit Granted CENTRUS ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in McGlone Contamination Suit CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit Over Offsite Contamination Ongoing CHATHAM LODGING: Settlements in Ruffy and Doonan Cases Approved CHATHAM LODGING: Settlements Reached in Perez et al. Actions CHEBOYGAN, MI: Appeals Decision in Arkona Suit to Sixth Circuit CHICAGO INSURANCE: Abramson TCPA Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Nursing Moms Face Discrimination, Hendrix Says CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Misled Investors on Merger Deal, Kent Claims CLASSICA CRUISE: Janicijevic Slams Breach of Employment Contract CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: Andeola Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls CLOROX CO: Gudgel Alleges Deceptive Ads on Splash-Less Bleach COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Faces Blackwell Suit in California CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought CORECIVIC INC: Fact Discovery Ongoing in Grae Class Suit CORECIVIC INC: Immigration Detainees' Suit Ongoing in California CREDIT UNION: Faces Anthes Consumer Suit in Texas District Court CRST INT'L: Cervantes FLSA Suit Moved From D. Mass. to N.D. Iowa DEFENSE TAX: Court Denies Amended Motion for Class Certification DIANE EASTER: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Whitted Suit DIMET INC: Faces Quintanilla et al. Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DISCOUNT CAREGIVERS: Hernandez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages DOLLY FOOD: Juarez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages & OT, Tip Skimming ECUADOR: Has Violated Securities Laws, Contrarian et al. Claim EHEALTH INC: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Due August 25 ELEVATE CREDIT: Liable for Think Finance's Misconduct, Gibbs Says ENDURANCE INT'L: Approval of McGee Settlement Now Final GEICO GENERAL: Day Sues Over Payoff of Licensed Attorney Judges GENERAL MOTORS: Hammerschmidt Sues Over Automobile Airbag Defect GLUMETZA ANTITRUST: Direct Purchasers Win Class Status GOOGLE LLC: Pure Sweat Hits Monopoly of Android OS Apps HAMILTOM POINT: Brooks Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOGAN SERVICES: Croskey et al. Seek Class Certification INTEL CORP: Thorsen Sues Over Decline in Securities' Market Value IOWA PLAYHOUSE: Faces Grove Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Iowa JET AVIATION: Reyes NJLAD Suit Moved From Super. Court to D.N.J. JPMORGAN CHASE: Favors Large Clients in PPP Loans, Ajira Says KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Portillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime LCS COMMUNITY: Stinson BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois LENDINGCLUB CORP: Appeal Filed in Shron Suit LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Class Suit LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Dismisses All Claims in Veal Suit LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sosa ADA Class Action Ongoing in S.D.N.Y. LONGHORN PIZZA: Delivery Drivers Seek Proper Wages LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $4.75 Million Paid for Kramer Settlement LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid for Class Certification in Savidis Pending LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court Reconsiders Calculation of Lawyer's Fees LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Deadline Extended to March 2021 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Visnack Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages MACY'S WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges MDL 2481: Ampal Inc. Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Circuit MEARS GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Charpentier Claims MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Moreau Seeks OT Pay for Nurse Practitioners MONROE TOWNSHIP, NJ: Faces J.A. Suit in District of New Jersey MONTGOMERY, NY: Hill & Rodgers Seek Initial Settlement Approval NCAA: Sterling Sues Over Disregard for Athletes' Health & Safety NCAA: Thomas Sues Over Reckless Disregard for Health of Athletes NCAA: Wiljanen Sues Over Disregard for Athletes' Health & Safety NEW YORK CITY, NY: E.D.N.Y. Dismisses Syville Civil Rights Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Dominguez in Gulino Bias Suit NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Emeagwali in Gulino Bias Suit NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Underway NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Ongoing in Maryland & New York OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Ruling in GTx Merger Suits Under Appeal OPEN TEXT: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Dismiss Carbonite Suit ORGANIFI LLC: Court Denies Liou Bid to Remand Suit ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing on Riche Settlement Set for Sept. 16 ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Injunction Sought Against Phoenix Insurance PARK HOLDING: Fails to Timely Pay Earned Wages, Carrera Claims PATENAUDE & FELIX: Harrisbishop Hits Deceptive Collection Letter POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending POSTMATES INC: Rogers Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit RAWLINGS SPORTING: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification REALNETWORKS INC: Napster to Pay Claims in Next 12 Months ROOFLINE INC: Faces Tello Class Suit in California Superior Court RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Underway in California SEALED AIR: UA Local 13's Securities Class Suit Ongoing SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: Fails to Pay Guards' Wages, Williams Says SELECT FUNDING: Greene Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Calls SNOW TEETH: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site SONIC DRIVE: Henderson Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Amend Suit, for Class Status Pending STEVEN SCOTT: Hagen Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Minn. Sup. Ct. SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Ongoing SUNPATH LTD: Baccari Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Griffith Suit Asserts Telescope Price-fixing TELETRACKING TECHNOLOGIES: Hall Alleges Wrongful Termination TREEHOUSE FOODS: Mediation in MSPERS Suit Delayed by Pandemic TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing UNDER ARMOUR: Suit over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing UPS STORE: Court Amends Certified Question for SJC in Richardson VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Vehicle Owners Sue Over Defective Breaks WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California WASTE MANAGEMENT: Miranda Negligence Suit Removed to S.D. Florida WELLS FARGO: Sued over Preferential Treatment to Large Clients WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Caustic Soda Class Suits Proceed to Discovery WOLVERINE WORLD: Consolidated Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing ZIMMER BIOMET: Appeals Decision in Karl Suit to Ninth Circuit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $779MM Claim Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $5.5MM Asbestos Coverage at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $92MM Claims Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 38,800 Claims Pending at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $154MM Gross Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Had $115.2MM Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Records $803.8MM Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $497MM Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at June 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 176 Cases at June 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,705 Exposure Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $118.4MM Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Had $24MM Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $8.7MM Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 556 Claims Pending at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Estimates $85.7MM Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $525.0MM Asbestos Liability at June 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 222 PI Lawsuits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 8 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 816 Active Cases at June 30 ********* 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- 22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409, is pending. On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver, Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company;s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553. The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Fitch sues individually and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Fitch litigation filed a motion in both the Fitch and Bull actions: (1) proposing Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr. Fitch as purportedly representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to consolidate the Fitch litigation with the Bull litigation, and (3) seeking to be appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs' counsel in the Bull litigation filed and then withdrew a comparable motion seeking to consolidate the cases and be appointed as lead counsel. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull case issued an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs. On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal district court in the Western District of New York, where it remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285. Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November 19, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs purchased shares of the Company's common stock and sues individually and to bring a class action for all persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and July 31, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges three counts: Count I sues the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the Company's quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other public statements and documents contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5(a) and (c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On January 3, 2020, the Court reassigned the Bull case to Judge John L. Sinatra, also in the Western District of New York. On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The company then filed its final reply brief on April 29, 2020. On July 31, 2020, the Court heard oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and the company is awaiting their decision. 22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims." 22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of nicotine and other nicotine alkaloids in tobacco plants, and cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York. 6G MANAGEMENT: Collram Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GRANT COLLRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 6G MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00530-DBB (D. Utah., July 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that 6G does not pay overtime to its day rate employees. Instead, 6G pays its employees a flat day rate with no overtime compensation, even though they work many hours in excess of 40 hours per week. Collram was employed by 6G as a pipeline Utility Inspector. 6G is an oilfield construction management and inspection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Paige Benjamin, Esq. PO Box 1464 Provo, UT 84603 Telephone: 801-822-9210 Facsimile: 801-228-2425 E-mail: paigebenjamin@mac.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Telecopier: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com 723 EDIBLES: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Ariza Claims -------------------------------------------------------- AMADO ARIZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 723 EDIBLES, INC. d/b/a TSQ BRASSERIE, and JOSEPH BENMOHA and SOLOMON BENMOHA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06330 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from on or about September 2018 through March 23, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly scheduled to work more than 40 hours each week throughout his employment with Defendants, but he was not paid for his overtime hours worked and was not even given any kind of break or meal break. Additionally, Defendants paid Plaintiff two bounced check when Defendant TSQ Brasserie had to close on or about March 23, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not ask Plaintiff to return to work when restaurant reopened, and refused to return phone calls from Plaintiff. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff earned wages, overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay, and failed to provide annual wage notices and accurate wage statements. Joseph Benmoha and Solomon Benmoha operate the Corporate Defendant and established and maintained policies regarding their pay practices. 723 Edibles, Inc. d/b/a TSQ Brasserie operates a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 323-6980 Fax: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com ACADIA PHARMA: Amended Complaint Filed in NUPLAZID Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the lead plaintiff in the consolidated putative securities class action suit entitled, In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, has filed an amended complaint. Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity about NUPLAZID, three purported company stockholders filed putative securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On January 3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission. On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15, 2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID threatened initial and continuing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and by failing to disclose that the Company engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June 7, 2019. On June 1, 2020, the Court granted the motion in part and gave lead plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On July 16, 2020, lead plaintiff filed the amended complaint. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. AFFINITY INSURANCE: Johnson Breach Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES INC., WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS AON AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22641 (Filed June 11, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 5, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07020 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; breach of contract; and bad faith breach of an insurance contract. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendants to "engage in corrective advertising" regarding the insurance products at issue. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory enhanced damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Affinity Insurance's line of business includes providing management consulting services.[BN] The Defendant Affinity Insurance is represented by: Mark B. Helm, Esq. Jennifer L. Bryant, Esq. John D. Maher, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: mark.helm@mto.com jennifer.bryant@mto.com john.maher@mto.com AFFINITY MERCHANT: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Kuhnast Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD KUHNAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFINITY MERCHANT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01068-UNA (Fla. Cir., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., August 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful transmission of telemarketing or advertising text messages to his cellular telephone number and the cellular telephone numbers of Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express written consent. Affinity Merchant Services, Inc. is a company that offers credit card processing and merchant solutions, with its principal address at 70 E. Sunrise Hwy. Ste. 500, Valley Stream, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 469-4496 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Hicks' Privacy Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Craig Hicks is pending. On May 8, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company by Craig Hicks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or the TCPA, and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act, or the VTPPA. The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA and VTPPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorneys' fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 2, 2020, and plaintiff filed his response on July 16, 2020. The company filed its reply on July 22, 2020. Alarm.com said, "The matter remains pending. Based on currently available information, we have determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time." Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the United States and internationally. The company provides interactive security solutions to control and monitor their security systems, as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming, smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions. Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Facing Abante Rooter and Plumbing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a named defendant in a putative class action initiated by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Sidney Naiman. On July 29, 2020, a putative class action was filed against Alarm.com Incorporated d/b/a ICN Acquisition, among other defendants, by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Sidney Naiman in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief. Alarm.com said, "We have agreed to waive service of the complaint, and our response is due September 29, 2020. Based on currently available information, we have determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time." Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the United States and internationally. The company provides interactive security solutions to control and monitor their security systems, as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming, smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions. Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. ALL AMERICAN POWER: Abramson Sues Over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------ STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL AMERICAN POWER AND GAS PA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01173-NR (W.D. Pa., August 7, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant placed a prerecorded telemarketing call to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (412) 418-XXXX on June 30, 2020 in an attempt to promote its products and solicit new clients. Plaintiff consequently agreed to participate in a recorded verification process to verify the identity of the calling party which was being conducted by "Verbatim Verification System" on behalf of the Defendant and which was performed by a company named "Verbatim TPV". The complaint asserts that Defendant's calls have harmed and caused injury to Plaintiff and the other call recipients. All American Power and Gas PA, LLC provides energy services to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, PC 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-1250 Email: csm@consumerlaw365.com - and – Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (508) 221-1510 Email: Anthony@paronichlaw.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Appeals Ruling in Schafer Suit to 6th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Allied Interstate LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Schafer v. Allied Interstate LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00233, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all persons in Michigan, whom during a time period from March 14, 2016, to March 14, 2017, were sent the subject form letter, and it was not returned, where the debt sought to be collected was in default for more than six years and no payment had been received for more than six years"; 2. certifying a subclass consisting of: "all persons in Michigan, whom during a time period from March 14, 2016, to March 14, 2017, were sent the subject form letter, and it was not returned, where the debt sought to be collected was in default for more than six years and no payment had been received for more than six years and whom either made a payment, disputed the debt or requested verification; and 3. appointing herself as the class representative and appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in attempting to collect a time barred debt without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued on the debt because of the age of the debt. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Allied Interstate LLC, et al., Case No. 20-107, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent LISA J. SCHAFER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Curtis Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 5 E. Market Street, Suite 250 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - Bert Thomas Golden, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897-2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com Defendants-Petitioners ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., are represented by: Brian Adair Sutherland, Esq. REED SMITH 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 E-mail: bsutherland@reedsmith.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Appeals Ruling in Schafer Suit to 6th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Allied Interstate LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Lisa Schafer v. Allied Interstate LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00233, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Janet T. Neff entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; 2. granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and subclass resp. defined as: "all persons in Michigan who during a time period from March 14, 2016 to March 14, 2017, were sent the subject form letter, and it was not returned, where the debt sought to be collected was in default for more than six years and no payment had been received for more than six years"; and "all persons in Michigan who, during a time period from March 14, 2016 to March 14, 2017, were sent the subject form letter, and it was not returned, where the debt sought to be collected was in default for more than six years and no payment had been received for more than six years and whom either made a payment, disputed the debt or requested verification"; 3. appointing herself as the Class Representative and appointing Curtis C. Warner as the Class Counsel; and 4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel, within 21 days of entry of this Order, to file a proposed notification form that complies with FED.R.CIV.P.23(c), together with a statement describing the method by which the notice will be provided to class members and a list of persons to whom the notice will be sent. The Court said, "The Plaintiff argues that the class must first be certified and notice provided to the class members before Defendants could move for individual arbitration against any member of the certified class who did not opt out. The Plaintiff also points out that the Defendants arguably waived any right to compel class members into later arbitration where the Defendants failed to raise during discovery or as an affirmative defense that any of the putative class members would potentially be subject to arbitration. The Plaintiff argues that actual damages in this case are objective and do not bar class certification but instead make the class action vehicle superior to pursuing individual claims. The Court, in its discretion, determines that the proposed class action meets the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)." The Plaintiff filed this putative class action case alleging a single claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, arising from the Defendants' collection efforts on a time-barred debt. On February 9, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for a credit card from CorTrust. According to the Defendants, CorTrust then mailed Plaintiff both a credit card and the CorTrust Bank, N.A. MasterCard Cardholder Agreement and Disclosure Statement. LVNV Funding eventually came to own Plaintiff's CorTrust account. LVNV purchases portfolios of consumer debt, including defaulted debts previously owned by banks, finance companies and other debt buyers. In privacy notices attached to correspondence with Plaintiff, LVNV and Resurgent Capital Services L.P. are identified as "related companies". On April 16, 2013, Resurgent contracted with Allied Interstate LLC for Allied to provide debt collection services related to accounts that Resurgent managed, including accounts that Resurgent managed for LVNV. Allied Interstate provides financial services. The Company offers accounts receivable, customer retention, and debt collection services. The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Schafer v. Allied Interstate LLC, et al., Case No. 20-1755, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LISA J. SCHAFER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Bert Thomas Golden, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897-2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com - and - Curtis Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 5 E. Market Street, Suite 250 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal Defendants-Appellants ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P. are represented by: Christopher R. Murphy, Esq. REED SMITH 10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 E-mail: crmurphy@reedsmith.com AMERICAN HONDA: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Banh Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jimmy Banh, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-05984-RGK-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 13, 2020, the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the Plaintiffs who have been compelled to arbitration; 2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the Plaintiffs who have been dismissed; 3. denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification insofar as it seeks certification of seven proposed classes; 4. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification insofar as it seeks certification of 13 state-specific classes: a. The motion is granted to the extent it seeks certification of a California Class. The Court appoints the Plaintiff Banh as class representative. The California Class is defined as follows: "all persons or entities who purchased a new Class Car from an authorized Acura dealer in California." b. The Motion is denied in all other respects. 5. denying without prejudice the Defendant's motions to strike; 6. severing and transferring the Plaintiffs' claims as follows: a. Bulbrey's claims are severed and transferred to the District of Arizona. b. Gonzales' claims are severed and transferred to the District of Utah. c. Hanna's claims are severed and transferred to the District of Massachusetts. d. M. Klein's claims are severed and transferred to the District of Oregon. e. Moss' claims are severed and transferred to the District of New Mexico. 7. severing and transferring the remaining claims of the non- California Plaintiffs once the parties have completed the requested supplemental briefing; and 8. continuing the deadline to file Motions in Limine and other pre-trial materials for 30 days. The lawsuit seeks redress for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs are Acura owners, who allege that the "infotainment systems" malfunction in the 2019 and 2020 Acura RDX vehicles. The Plaintiffs were promised that said system would be available to Android systems within "a few weeks or months." To date, they allege that the infotainment system would take up to a minute before it would start playing audio and had been forced to use an adaptor, USB stick, and MP3 player to listen to music, thus causing a distraction when driving. The appellate case is captioned as Jimmy Banh, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 20-80120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JIMMY BANH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JAMAL SAMAHA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; GEORGE QUINLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; GARY HANNA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ALEXI CHISARI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MICHAEL BRUMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, DAVE JAHSMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JOHN BARTHOLOMEW, on behalf of themselves abd all others similarly situated; VIMAL LAWRENCE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; CHARLES DENARO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ADAM PRYOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SRIKARTHIK SUBBARAO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ERIC FADEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; HAMILTON HINES, on behlaf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ROBERTA BILBREY, on behlaf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MARK PEOPLES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; KAYCE KLEEHAMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; DANIEL ALLAN, on bhealf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and KRISTEN GRATTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steve Berman, Esq. Sean Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com Defendant-Petitioner AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. is represented by: Isham Cason Hewgley, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (865) 257-2408 E-mail: chewgley@kslaw.com - and - Livia M. Kiser, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com - and - Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4344 E-mail: mshortnacy@kslaw.com - and - Anne M. Voigts, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 422-6710 E-mail: avoigts@kslaw.com AMERICAN WATER: Class Certification Bid in Jeffries OK'd in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court in Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company, ruled that it would partially grant the Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of an issues class and would deny the request for certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier for the class. On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's (WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar. The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event. On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage. In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to dismiss all of the Jeffries plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory and common law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the public utility code and related rules. In May, 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and in October, 2018, the court issued a written order to that effect. On February 21, 2019, the court issued an order denying WVAWC's motion to dismiss the Jeffries plaintiffs' tort claims. On August 21, 2019, the court set a procedural schedule in this case, including a trial date of September 21, 2020. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On February 4, 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification on the issues of breach of contract and negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. A hearing on class certification was held on March 11, 2020, followed by a status conference on April 7, 2020. On June 11, 2020, the court ruled that it would partially grant the Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of an issues class and would deny the request for certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier for the class. On July 14, 2020, the court entered an order reflecting its June 11, 2020 rulings, and WVAWC intends to appeal this order to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The court also set a new trial date for April 12, 2021 and requested the parties prepare an appropriate scheduling order. The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. The Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of such losses related to this proceeding. American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides water and wastewater services in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. AMERICAN WATER: Oral Argument Next Month on Bid to Dismiss "Bruce" ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that oral argument on the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al., has been scheduled for September 9, 2020. On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("TAWC"), experienced a break of a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water notice. TAWC repaired the main break by early morning on September 14, 2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon on September 15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September 16, 2019. On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and American Water Works Service Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (collectively, the "Tennessee-American Water Defendants"), on behalf of an alleged class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga main break (the "Tennessee Plaintiffs"). The complaint alleges breach of contract and negligence against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. The Tennessee Plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On November 22, 2019, the Tennessee-American Water Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and, with respect to the Company, for lack of personal jurisdiction. A hearing on this motion was held on February 18, 2020. On June 8, 2020, the judge hearing the case transferred the matter to a different judge prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for September 9, 2020. The Tennessee-American Water Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint, and they are vigorously defending themselves against these allegations. The Company cannot currently determine the likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of such losses related to this proceeding. American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides water and wastewater services in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. AMPLER BURGERS: Emory Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT --------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTIAN EMORY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMPLER BURGERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-041133-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, August 12, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged illegal wage practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a shift leader at Defendant's Burger King located in Zanesville, Ohio from approximately December 2019 through February 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other approximately 200 similarly situated employees were often required by Defendant to work over 40 hours per week without being paid for those excess hours. Additionally, Plaintiff and other shift leaders had to "kickback" overtime pay to pay for business expenses. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated shift leaders overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate pursuant to the FLSA. Ampler Burgers, LLC operates Burger King restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8 N. Court St., Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Tel: 847-986-5889 Fax: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com ANTARES PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Third Amended Class Action Complaint in the case, Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, is pending. On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell. The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided insufficient data to the Food and Drug Arbitration (FDA) in connection with the New Drug Application (NDA) for XYOSTED(R); and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval prospects for XYOSTED(R). On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff. On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint against the same parties alleging substantially similar claims. On September 12, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on October 28, 2019 and defendants' reply in support of their motion was filed on November 27, 2019. On April 28, 2020, the court dismissed the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The court further ordered that plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 29, 2020 and provide the court with a form of the amended complaint that indicates in what respect(s) it differs from the complaint which it proposes to amend. On May 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Third Amended Class Action Complaint and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 10, 2020. Antares said, "The parties expect briefing on defendants' motion will be complete on August 25, 2020. The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit and intends to defend them vigorously." Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey. AT&T MOBILITY: Toler Seeks Overtime Pay for Retail Store Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES ANDREW TOLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 1:20-cv-03144-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2020), seeks relief for the Plaintiff and past and present AT&T employees nationwide, whom the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated Retail Store Employees routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week and the Defendant failed to timely and properly pay them for overtime hours. The Defendants own, operate, or control retail stores, kiosks, and in-store locations and/or the employee payrolls for these Retail Stores. The Retail Stores provide customer support, services, and sales of wireless telecommunication and mobile phone services and products under the AT&T brand name.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Maxim, Esq. THE MAXIM LAW FIRM, P.C. 1718 Peachtree St., NW, Suite 599 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 924-4272 Facsimile: (404) 924-4273 E-mail: kmaxim@maximlawfirm.com - and - Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. Mark A. Bulgarelli, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 1570 Oak Avenue, Suite 103 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 787-2717 E-mail: ilan@progressivelaw.com markb@progressivelaw.com AURORA HEALTH: Eubanks Seeks to Certify Wisconsin Class ------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as KENYONA EUBANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01253-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Wisconsin Class on behalf of: "all persons who worked for Defendant as hourly employees in Wisconsin at any time between August 14, 2018 and the present, whose clock in and clock out times were rounded to their detriment"; and 2. appointing her attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiff contends that Aurora has a wage and hour policy and practice that rounds her and similarly situated hourly employees' clock-in and clock-out times to the advantage of Aurora in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. She adds that Aurora's rounding policy, which applied to all non-exempt employees regardless of whether they are direct employees or placed at Aurora through a temporary staffing agency. Aurora owns, operates and controls hospitals and health care facilities in Wisconsin.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Patrick J. Schott, Esq. SCHOTT, BUBLITZ & ENGLE, S.C. 640 West Moreland Boulevard Waukesha, WI 53188 Telephone: (262) 827-1700 E-mail: pschott@sbe-law.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com BECTON DICKINSON: 19,265 Hernia Product Claims Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that as of June 30, the Company is defending approximately 19,265 product liability claims involving the Company's line of hernia repair devices (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In August 2018, a hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio. Trials are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021 in various state and/or federal courts, with the first trial currently scheduled for October 2020 in Rhode Island. A second trial is currently scheduled for January 2021 in the MDL. The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BECTON DICKINSON: 2,165 Filter Product Claims Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that as of June 30, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 2,165 product liability claims involving the Company's line of inferior vena cava filters (collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The majority of those claims were previously pending in an Multi District Litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being, remanded to various federal jurisdictions. Filter Product Claims are also pending in various state court jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company. On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above, remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials are scheduled throughout 2020. As of June 30, 2020, the Company entered into settlement agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for approximately 7,495 cases. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict. On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 575 Women's Health Product Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that as of June 30, the Company is defending approximately 575 product liability claims involving the Company's line of pelvic mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending in various federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the figures above are approximately 990 filed and unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the Company is actually at issue. The claims identified above also include products manufactured by both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with Medtronic. In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. As of June 30, 2020, the Company has paid Medtronic $141 million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims." The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. As of June 30, 2020, the Company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,225 of the Women's Health Product Claims. The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW). On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February 5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and costs. The complaint alleges that defendants concealed material information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, including that (1) certain pumps exhibited software errors, (2) the Company was investing in remediation efforts as opposed to other enhancements and (3) the Company was thus reasonably likely to recall certain pumps and/or experience regulatory delays. These alleged omissions, the complaint asserts, rendered certain public statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects false or misleading, causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Appeals Ruling in Rascon Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Benchmark Electronics, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Luis Rascon v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06632-RGK-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 5, 2020, the case was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 23, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06632 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for relief arising out of his employment with Benchmark. The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods under, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, in violation of the Labor Code. Benchmark Electronics is in the business of manufacturing electronics and providing services to original equipment manufacturers. The appellate case is captioned as Luis Rascon v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., et al, Case No. 20-55810, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Benchmark Electronics, Inc.'s opening brief is due on October 8, 2020; -- Appellee Luis Rascon's answering brief is due on November 9, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LUIS RASCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com sweerasuriya@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com Defendant-Appellant BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC. is represented by: Paul Scott Cowie, Esq. Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 774-3182 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Appeals Ruling in Rascon Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Benchmark Electronics, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Luis Rascon v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-06632-RGK-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 5, 2020, the case was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 23, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06632 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for relief arising out of his employment with Benchmark. The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods under, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, in violation of the Labor Code. Benchmark Electronics is in the business of manufacturing electronics and providing services to original equipment manufacturers. The appellate case is captioned as Luis Rascon v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Case No. 20-80118, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent LUIS RASCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com sweerasuriya@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com Defendant-Petitioner BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC. is represented by: Paul Scott Cowie, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq. Brooke S. Purcell, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 774-3182 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com BIBI METABOLIC: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Perrone Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- TATYANA PERRONE, Plaintiff, v. BIBI METABOLIC AND BARIATRIC SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WEIGHT LOSS AND WELLNESS CENTER, SANIEA MAJID, ALI AHMAD, JOHN DOES 1 through 10, and ABC CO. 1 through 10. Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10587 (D.N.J., August 17, 2020) alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiff was employed as a "Practice Manager" in Defendants' medical office located at Chatham, New Jersey from June of 2019 through March of 2020. Plaintiff usually worked between 50 and 60 hours per week. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was paid for 40 hours of work each week, regardless of the number of hours she worked. Defendants never paid Plaintiff for her overtime, which should have been calculated at one and one-half times Plaintiff's regularly hourly wage. Plaintiff was sick and unable to work in the office from March 16 through March 20, 2020. On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff provided Defendant Majid with her COVID-19 test results and Defendant Majid advised Plaintiff to file for unemployment and only work one day the following week. On or about April 3, 2020, Defendant Majid revoked Plaintiff's office laptop in retaliation for a call from the Health Department, whereupon Defendant Majid essentially accused Plaintiff of reporting her office to the Health Department. Instead, another employee advised Defendant Majid that she (not Plaintiff) had called the Health Department. Nevertheless, Defendant Majid advised Plaintiff to now apply for full unemployment and revoked her ability to work even one day per week. Bibi Metabolic and Bariatric Services, LLC d/b/a Weight Loss and Wellness Center is a New Jersey-based healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Andrykovitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS H. ANDRYKOVITZ, P.C. 260 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-8999 - and - Joshua F. McMahon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA F. McMAHON, LLC 123 South Avenue East Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (908) 233-4840 BLUESTONE LANE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Boyd Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELLE BOYD, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. BLUESTONE LANE HOLDINGS, LLC, Delaware limited liability company; BLUESTONE LANE NY LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-585787 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., July 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime pay in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at a San Francisco location, as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis and entitled to certain non-discretionary incentive. Bluestone Lane owns and operates a chain of cafes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Dieco, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: JLAPUYADE@JCL-LAWFIRM.COM - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230a San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 255-9047 Facsimile: (619) 404-9203 BORAL INDUSTRIES: Arbitration OK'd in Bishop Wage & Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned RYAN BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BORAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation; BORAL ROOFING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants. Case No. 3:18-cv-02701-BEN-MSB. (S.D. Cal.) Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants in state court alleging Defendants engaged in unfair business practices by failing to (1) provide meal breaks (2) provide rest breaks (3) pay final wages, and (4) provide timely and accurate wage statements. Plaintiff also sought to represent a class of similarly situated persons. Defendants contend that Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement while applying to work for Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, a staffing agency, which does business in California as Select Staffing. Defendants argue the agreement is valid under the Federal Arbitration Act, Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement requires Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims individually. The Court agrees. Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated these points, and Plaintiff has not offered argument to rebut. Accordingly, Plaintiff must arbitrate his claims and he must do so individually. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxp8bhkv from Leagle.com BP AMERICA: Court in Cecil Suit Refuses to Disturb Chieftain Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma issued an Order denying Motion to Exercise Exclusive and Continuing Jurisdiction to Enforce in the case captioned JOHN CECIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY (f/k/a Amoco Production Company) (including BP Amoco Corporation, ARCO, BP Exploration, Inc., BP Corporation North America, Inc., and BP Energy Company), Case No. CIV-16-410-KEW (E.D. Okla.). The matter comes before the Court on Settlement Class Members, Chieftain Royalty Company and Castlerock Resources, Inc.'s Motion to Exercise Exclusive and Continuing Jurisdiction to Enforce, Construe, and Interpret the Cecil Settlement Agreement and Request for Hearing. This action was filed as a putative class action to "bring claims to rectify BP's actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and/or constituents of the gas stream produced from wells through improper accounting methods (such as not paying on the starting price for gas products but instead taking improper deductions) and by failing to account for and pay royalties. . . ." On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement, Approve Form and Manner of Notice, and Set Date for Final Fairness Hearing. Appended to the Motion was the Parties' Settlement Agreement. After a hearing, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement class and associated settlement on September 5, 2018. An Order of final approval of the class and class action settlement was entered on November 19, 2018, after a final fairness hearing. Meanwhile, Chieftain Royalty Company and Castlerock Resources, Inc. filed a putative class action case against BP America Production Company in the District Court in and for Nowata County, Oklahoma, which was eventually removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on January 23, 2018 (Chieftain Royalty Company and Castlerock Resources, Inc. v. BP America Production Company, Case No. 4:18-CV-00054-GKF-JFJ). These Plaintiffs asserted claims for "Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to payment of statutory interest on late payments of oil and gas production proceeds . . . to persons with a legal interest in the mineral acreage under a well which entitles such person(s) . . . to payments of O&G Proceeds." After the Cecil case was settled in this District, the Chieftain case proceeded in the Northern District culminating in the Defendant filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking to enforce the Cecil settlement against the claims asserted by the Chieftain Plaintiffs, contending that the claims were subsumed into the class settled in Cecil. In response, the Chieftain Plaintiffs sought to stay the case pending in the Northern District of Oklahoma to permit this Court to interpret the terms of the Cecil Settlement Agreement and the defined Released Parties to determine whether the claims in Chieftain were released. Alternatively, Chieftain Plaintiffs sought to transfer the case to this District. The Chieftain Plaintiffs also filed the subject Motion in this case. Judge Judge Gregory K. Frizzell in the Chieftain case denied the transfer of the case by minute order. He also denied the request to stay the case, specifically finding "as '[d]eciding whether and how prior litigation has preclusive effect is usually the bailiwick of the second court. . . .' citing Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011)." The subject Motion refers to the retention of jurisdiction terms in the Settlement Agreement which states that "All disputes and proceedings with respect to the administration, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court." The Order Approving the Settlement and Final Judgment also included language that this Court would retain jurisdiction over the "implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and resulting Settlement." Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West notes that it appears that the primary point of contention lies in whether the class and Released Parties defined in this case included the claims asserted in the Chieftain case. In an attempt to have this issue resolved, the Chieftain Plaintiffs seek to have this Court invade the jurisdiction of the District Court in the Northern District and enjoin that action for proceeding. This Court certainly retained jurisdiction in the terms of its Order to interpret the terms of the Settlement Agreement as it pertains to this case and the claims asserted in this case, Judge West writes. This retention is not without limitations. The Chieftain Plaintiffs would have this Court impose its jurisdiction beyond the confines of the Cecil case and interfere in the administration of the Chieftain case. This expands the retained jurisdiction beyond the intended boundaries, Judge West continues. While the case pertains to the relationship between a state court and a federal court, the sentiment remains persuasive--the second subsequent court should be permitted to determine whether a prior judgment has preclusive effect over the claims asserted in the case pending before it, Judge West opines, citing Smith v. Bayer, 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011). Indeed, Judge Frizzell has now done so through his recent ruling on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, which is both well-supported and well-reasoned. This ruling demonstrates that Judge Frizzell was in an equal or better position to this Court in determining the effect of the Cecil Settlement Agreement and Judgment upon the claims and parties in the Chieftain case pending before him. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or the Judgment precluded him from doing so. This Court will not disturb his assertion of jurisdiction or his ruling, Judge West states. It is, therefore, ordered that Settlement Class Members, Chieftain Royalty Company and Castlerock Resources, Inc.'s Motion to Exercise Exclusive and Continuing Jurisdiction to Enforce, Construe, and Interpret the Cecil Settlement Agreement and Request for Hearing is DENIED; and that BP America's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Chieftain and Castlerock's Motion Relating to Its Preclusion Defense in the Northern District of Oklahoma is DENIED as a response is not required since this Court may determine its jurisdiction sua sponte. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8pk38u2 from Leagle.com. BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Souza Appeals Savino Suit Ruling to 1st Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Steven J. Souza filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Celimen Savino, et al. v. Souza, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-WGY, in the in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. Steven J. Souza is the Superintendent of the Bristol County House of Correction. Thomas M. Hodgson is sued in his official capacity as Bristol County Sheriff. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion for class certification. The named Petitioners are two of approximately 148 individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on civil immigration charges and held at the Bristol County House of Corrections ("BCHOC") in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The Detainees are held in two on-site facilities: 92 are in a separate ICE facility called the C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center, and the rest are housed in a portion of the BHCOC called "Unit B" together with non-immigration pre-trial detainees. The Detainees assert that they find it impossible to maintain the recommended distance of 6 feet from others and they must also share or touch objects used by others. They have provided affidavits from two physicians, who have recently visited Detainees on site. Dr. Nathan Praschan of Massachusetts General Hospital states that the best-known methods of preventing infectious spread, such as social distancing, frequent hand washing, and sanitation of surfaces are unavailable to the Detainees, who sleep, eat, and recreate in extremely close quarters and do not have access to basic hygienic supplies. Dr. Matthew Gartland of Brigham and Women's Hospital avers that based on his own experience visiting Bristol County House of Corrections, he does not believe that the Detainees, can be adequately protected from the virus that causes COVID-19. This is based on a lack of private sinks or showers and inadequate hand soap supplies, and hand sanitizers, as well as inadequate allowance for social distancing, screening for symptoms and exposure to the virus, testing of individuals with symptoms, and appropriate quarantine and isolation facilities. The Detainees filed a habeas petition as a putative class action in the Court on March 27, 2020. The petition asserts two claims: (1) violation of due process as a result of confinement in conditions that include the imminent risk of contracting COVID-19; and (2) violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to provide reasonable accommodations, in the form of protection against COVID-19, to the Detainees with medical conditions. The appellate case is captioned as Celimen Savino, et al. v. Souza, Case No. 20-1768, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are due on August 24, 2020.[BN] Petitioners-Appellees MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, and all those similarly situated; and JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES, and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Muneer I. Ahmad, Esq. Reena Parikh, Esq. Michael J. Wishnie, Esq. YALE LAW SCHOOL PO Box 209090 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06520-9090 Telephone: (203) 432-4716 E-mail: muneer.ahmad@yale.edu reena.parikh@yale.edu michael.wishnie@yale.edu - and - Rama S. Attreya, Esq. Michael J. Brown, Esq. John Joseph Butts, Esq. Annaleigh Elizabeth Curtis, Esq. Nicole M. Fontaine Dooley, Esq. Elizabeth E. Driscoll, Esq. Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq. Vinita Ferrera, Esq. Mikayla C. Foster, Esq. Gary Barrington Howell-Walton, Esq. Lisa Pirozzolo, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 526-6347 E-mail: RAMA.ATTREYA@WILMERHALE.COM MIKE.BROWN@WILMERHALE.COM JOHN.BUTTS@WILMERHALE.COM ANNALEIGH.CURTIS@WILMERHALE.COM NICOLE.FONTAINEDOOLEY@WILMERHALE.COM ELIZABETH.DRISCOLL@WILMERHALE.COM FELICIA.ELLSWORTH@WILMERHALE.COM VINITA.FERRERA@WILMERHALE.COM MIKAYLA.FOSTER@WILMERHALE.COM GARY.HOWELL-WALTON@WILMERHALE.COM LISA.PIROZZOLO@WILMERHALE.COM - and - Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq. Oren Nimni, Esq. Oren McCleary Sellstrom, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 61 Batterymarch St., 5th Flr. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-1145 Facsimile: (617) 482-4392 E-mail: office@lawyersforcivilrights.org Respondents-Appellants STEVEN J. SOUZA, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Bristol County House of Corrections; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Official performing the duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Boston Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and THOMAS M. HODGSON, in his official capacity as Bristol County Sheriff, are represented by: Thomas E. Kanwit, Esq. Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq. Michael P. Sady, Esq. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3271 Interested Party RICK RAEMISCH is represented by: William W. Fick, Esq. FICK & MARX LLP 24 Federal St., 4th Flr. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 321-8360 E-mail: wfick@fickmarx.com BUREAU OF PRISONS: Class Certification Bid Terminated as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN KEVIN MOORE, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, and WARDEN F. J. BOWERS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00123-GMG-RWT (N.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Gina M. Kroh entered an order on Aug. 11, 2020: 1. dismissing the case and terminating as moot a motion for certification as a class action and motion for appointment of counsel; and 2. directing the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of the Order to the Plaintiff. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals..[CC] CARIBOU COFFEE: Underpays Employees, Edmonds Claims --------------------------------------------------- The case, WENDY EDMONDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARIBOU COFFEE COMPANY, INC. (a/k/a and/or d/b/a Einstein Bros. Bagels), Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02115-E (N.D. Tex., August 8, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful employment patterns and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee from approximately September 25, 2015 to present at Defendant's bagel and coffee shop bearing the name Einstein Bros. Bagels. Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- Defendants manipulated her time worked to deduct time for meal breaks she never took or received; -- Defendants undercalculated her daily and weekly hours worked because it failed to count all breaks Plaintiff took; and -- Defendants retaliated against her by reducing her weekly hours when she complained about the unpaid time. Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. operates numerous bagel and coffee shop locations in Texas and states other than Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 251-4157 Fax: (214) 261-5159 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com CENTERPOINT ENERGY: 7th Cir. to Hear Oral Arguments in September ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in September 2020. On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired Vectren Corporation for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the Merger Date, Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy. With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because it omitted material information concerning the Merger. In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. In December 2018, two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits. In September 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed in October 2019. Appellate briefing is complete, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments in September 2020. The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised. CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support. CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The company is based in Houston, Texas. CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss in Matthews Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court has granted the Company, Enrichment Corp. and the other defendants' motion to dismiss a class action complaint over off-site contamination. On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant site (GDP) site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by James Matthews, Jennifer Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate of A.R., and others similarly situated (the "Matthews Plaintiffs"), in the Common Pleas Court of Pike County, Ohio. On January 3, 2020, the complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio for adjudication. The complaint sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contended that the ongoing and continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members were not "nuclear incidents" as that term is defined in the Price-Anderson Act, but rather "freestanding state law claims concerning traditional-style state regulation." On July 27, 2020, the court granted the Company, Enrichment Corp. and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because the Matthews Plaintiffs had opted not to proceed under the Price-Anderson Act which preempts state law. The Company and Enrichment Corp. had provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. CENTRUS ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in McGlone Contamination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court has granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham. On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant site (including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises) were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham (collectively, the "McGlone Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn’s Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019 and on January 10, 2020 to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the 15 claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations. Centrus said, "Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ("Price-Anderson Act"). The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions." Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by Ursula McGlone or what is called the "Citizen's Suit", has been voluntarily dismissed. On May 15, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendant in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, L.M., G.M., B.M., E.M., and M.M., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian, Ursula McGlone, Julia Dunham, K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian, Julia Dunham, Adam Rider, Brittani Rider, M.R., C.R., L.R. and L.R., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian, Brittani Rider, Ohio residents, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated ("Citizen's Suit") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint sought the imposition of civil penalties, requiring full abatement of endangerment, property remediation and injunctive relief for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs voluntarily filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice with the court. The Company and Enrichment Corp. had provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit Over Offsite Contamination Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick. On June 28, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and four other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick (collectively, the "Pritchard Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The Pritchard Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations. Centrus said, "Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. CHATHAM LODGING: Settlements in Ruffy and Doonan Cases Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a settlement agreement has been negotiated and approved by the applicable courts in the class action suits entitled, Ruffy, et al., v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473; and Doonan, et al., v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No 18-CV-325187. The nature of the operations of the Company's hotels exposes those hotels, the Company and the Operating Partnership to the risk of claims and litigation in the normal course of their business. Island Hospitality Management, LLC (IHM) is currently a defendant in several class action lawsuits pending in the state of California. The first class action lawsuit was filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on October 21, 2016 under the title Ruffy, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473 ("Ruffy") and the second class action lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2018 under the title Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No 18-CV-325187 ("Doonan"). The class actions relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state of California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the NewINK JV, and/or certain third parties. The complaints allege various wage and hour law violations based on alleged misclassification of certain hotel managerial staff and violation of certain California statutes regarding incorrect information contained on employee paystubs. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and interest. A settlement agreement has been negotiated and approved by the applicable courts for Ruffy and Doonan. As of June 30, 2020, included in accounts payable and accrued expenses is $0.1 million which represents an estimate of the Company's total exposure to the Ruffy and Doonan litigations based on standard indemnification obligations under hotel management agreements with IHM. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale, extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels. The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida. CHATHAM LODGING: Settlements Reached in Perez et al. Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that settlement agreements have been negotiated in various class actions against the Trust. These deals are currently awaiting approval by the applicable courts. Island Hospitality Management III LLC (IHM) is a defendant in the following series of interrelated class action lawsuits: -- Perez et al. v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-04903-DMG-JPR) filed on March 15, 2018, -- Cruz v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19CV353655) filed on August 19, 2019, -- Leon et al. v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01050719-CU-OE-CXC) filed on April 2, 2019, and -- Vela v. Island Hospitality Management LLC et al. (San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2019-0003525) filed on July 9, 2019. The Perez class actions also relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state of California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the NewINK JV, and/or certain third parties. The complaints allege various wage and hour law violations based on alleged violation of certain California statutes regarding rest and meal breaks and wage statements. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and interest. Settlement agreements have been negotiated and currently await approval by the applicable courts. Chatham said, "As of June 30, 2020, included in accounts payable and accrued expenses is $0.6 million which represents an estimate of the Company's total exposure to the Perez class actions based on standard indemnification obligations under hotel management agreements with IHM." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale, extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels. The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida. CHEBOYGAN, MI: Appeals Decision in Arkona Suit to Sixth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants COUNTY OF CHEBOYGAN, MI, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the matter styled ARKONA, LLC, DIANNE KASBOB, Case No. 1:19-cv-12372, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all property owners formerly owning property from within the counties of Monroe and Cheboygan who, since January 1, 2013, had said property seized by Defendants via the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78 et seq, which was worth more and/or was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and was not refunded the excess/surplus equity but excluding any property owner who has filed their own post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to obtain such relief." The class action lawsuit challenges the legality of certain voluntarily undertaken practices of the Counties of Cheboygan and Monroe, by, with, and through their respective current and past treasurers seizing highly valuable real property for relatively small unpaid tax debts and destroying/retaining the remaining excess equity. The Defendants have voluntarily agreed to administer Michigan's tax foreclosure process in such a way as to foreclose on properties whose value far exceeds the tax delinquency, sell the properties, and then destroy and/or withhold the surplus after the entire tax delinquency is resolved. At least one state court, with the same undersigned counsel as co-class counsel, has found this process unconstitutional as a form of takings undertaken in violation of the respective provisions of the Michigan and Federal Constitutions. The Plaintiffs in this case are two property owners, who both seek to litigate this case as to their own circumstances and also on behalf of their fellow property owners in their counties, who have suffered from the same unconstitutional misconduct. The appellate case is captioned as In re: County of Cheboygan, MI, et al., Case No. 20-106, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ARKONA, LLC and DIANNE KASBOB, AND all those similarly situated with Monroe County, are represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC PO Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 Facsimile: (888) 398-7003 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com Defendants-Petitioners In re: COUNTY OF CHEBOYGAN, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; BUFFY JO WELDON, in her official and personal/individual capacities; LINDA A. CRONAN, in her individual/personal capacity; COUNTY OF MONOE, MI; and KAY SISUNG, in her individual and official capacity, are represented by: Douglas J. Curlew, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO 17436 College Parkway Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 E-mail: dcurlew@cmda-law.com CHICAGO INSURANCE: Abramson TCPA Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CHICAGO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. d/b/a CONNECTED LEADS, THE PROSSEN AGENCY, LLC, and THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-03711 (Filed June 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Aug. 5, 2020. The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01144-CB to the proceeding. The suit demands $9.9 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon. The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. Allstate provides various insurance services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Kevin Murphy, Esq. Jonathan Patrick Misny, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Lauren E. Urban, Esq. 2425 N. Spaulding Ave., Floor 2 Chicago, IL 60647 Telephone: (419) 344-1146 E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com - and - Matthew McCue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW MCCUE 1 South Ave. Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 498-3765 Facsimile: (508) 498-3765 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net The Defendant Allstate Corporation is represented by: Lewis S. Wiener, Esq. Francis Xavier Nolan, IV, Esq. Robert Dewit Owen, Esq. Timothy J. McCaffrey, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 700 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001-3980 Telephone: (202) 383-0100 E-mail: LewisWiener@eversheds-sutherland.com franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com robertowen@eversheds-sutherland.com timmccaffrey@eversheds-sutherland.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Nursing Moms Face Discrimination, Hendrix Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOEL HENDRIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01595-ESW (D. Ariz., August 12, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged gender/pregnancy discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cashier from approximately March 2016 until December 2016 at Defendant's 59th and Thunderbird location in Glendale, Arizona. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were nursing mothers while employed by Defendant. Allegedly, they were refused by Defendant's managers to take a break to pump breastmilk during working hours despite their discomfort and embarrassing situation while on work, such as painful breast and breastmilk-soaked shirt while interacting with customers in close proximity. Moreover, Defendant's manager Vinnie F harassed her for requesting to take a pump break, but when Plaintiff complained about it to Defendant through voicemails, Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's complaints. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Barrat, Esq. Jessica Miller, Esq. ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Tel & Fax: 480-442-3410 Emails: jbarrat@zoldangroup.com jmiller@zoldangroup.com CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Misled Investors on Merger Deal, Kent Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORP III, MICHAEL KLEIN, JEREMY PAUL ABSON, GLENN AUGUST, MIKE ECK, BONNIE JONAS, MARK KLEIN, MALCOM S. MCDERMID, and KAREN MILLS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01068-UNA (D. Del., August 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a misleading and false proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated stockholders, alleges that the proxy statement omits material information with respect to the proposed merger of Churchill Capital Corp III with Churchill Music Merger Sub I, Inc., Music Merger Sub II, LLC, Polaris Parent Corp., and Polaris Investment Holdings, L.P. The material facts that the Defendants failed to disclose include: (1) Churchill Capital Corp's financial projections; (2) the terms of the engagement of the company's financial advisors, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Inc., and The Klein Group, LLC; (3) the analyses performed by Klein Group, Citigroup, and/or Goldman in connection with the proposed transaction; (4) whether the company entered into any nondisclosure agreements during the process leading up to the execution of the merger agreement, and if so, the terms of such agreements; and (5) the timing and nature of all communications regarding future employment and directorship of the company's officers and directors. As a result of the Defendants' omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members are not given all the necessary information that they need in deciding how to vote on the proposed transaction. Churchill Capital Corp III is a Delaware corporation that operates as a blank check company, with its principal executive offices located at 640 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10019. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and – Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com CLASSICA CRUISE: Janicijevic Slams Breach of Employment Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dragan Janicijevic, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated crew members working aboard Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line vessels, Plaintiffs, v. Classica Cruise Operator, Ltd., Paradise Cruise Line Operator Ltd. Inc., BPCL Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-23223, (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2020) seeks damages under U.S. General Maritime Law and/or the Jones Act, the Seaman's Wage Act, for breach of the employment contracts, for false imprisonment, and for negligent misrepresentation, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants collectively owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled cruise vessels Grand Celebration and Grand Classica. Janicijevic was employed by Defendants to work as a casino dealer. Defendants unilaterally terminated employment contracts with all of its crew members and any arbitration provisions contained within the employment contracts and/or CBAs to which they were incorporated. When the COVID pandemic halted all sailings, Defendants forced all crewmembers aboard the ship to sign a document stating they were voluntarily staying onboard, without pay. Crewmembers were forced to sign these agreements by being threatened that they would not be rehired if they did not sign. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Winkleman, Esq. Daniel W. Grammes, Esq. Andrew S. Freedman, Esq. LIPCON, MARGULIES, ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016 Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204 Email: mwinkleman@lipcon.com dgrammes@lipcon.com afreedman@lipcon.com CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: Andeola Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA ANDEOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING VENTURES d/b/a SELLER NETWORKS, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01607-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., August 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant began placing unwanted unsolicited marketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (209) 561-XXXX shortly after Plaintiff placed her vehicle for sale ad on craigslist even without Plaintiff's prior express written consent to receive calls. Allegedly, Defendant's call was prerecorded via an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to advertise its business aiming to provide assistance in advertising to help sell vehicles. Annoyed and frustrated with Defendant's marketing calls, Plaintiff answered one of its calls, stated she was not interested and asked to cease the calls. However, Defendant made another unsolicited marketing call on or about December 26, 2019. Classified Advertising Ventures does business as Seller Networks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Emails: yana@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com CLOROX CO: Gudgel Alleges Deceptive Ads on Splash-Less Bleach ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SHANA GUDGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CLOROX COMPANY and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05712 (N.D. Cal., August 14, 2020), arises from the Defendant's negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive advertising and labeling of the Clorox Splash-Less Bleach product, which led them to believe that it can be used as disinfectant similar to the Clorox Regular Bleach product. The Defendant failed to adequately disclose to consumers, including the Plaintiff, that the Splash-Less variety is not suitable for sanitization or disinfection and that it only contains around 1%-5% of sodium hypochlorite. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members lost money because they paid a price premium for the Splash-Less product. They would not have purchased the product if the true facts had been known. The Clorox Company is a manufacturer and marketer of consumer and professional products, with its principal place of business located at 1221 Broadway, Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Levinson, Esq. Justin Stockton, Esq. LEVINSON STOCKTON LLP 990 Highland Drive, Suite 206 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 792-1100 E-mail: dan@levinsonstocktonllp.com justin@levinsonstocktonllp.com - and – William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, LLP 301 Clematis Street, Suite 3000 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and – Daniel Faherty, Esq. TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL 815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201 Titusville, FL 32780 Telephone: (321) 269-6833 Facsimile: (321) 383-9970 E-mail: danfaherty@hotmail.com COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Faces Blackwell Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commercial Refrigeration Specialists, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Tim Blackwell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Commercial Refrigeration Specialists, Inc., a California Corporation and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00282409-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 28, 2020). The docket states Case Type: Other employment. CRS distributes refrigeration equipment and supplies. The Company offers supermarket, industrial, and commercial refrigerators, as well as condensate systems and heating equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian G. Lee, Esq. YOON LAW, APC 1 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: blee@yoonlaw.com CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MENTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CONCERTO HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-11514-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff Ashley Menth and opt-in plaintiffs Todd Hill and Karen Richards move pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry of an order: 1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA class; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email and text message) to: "all similarly situated current and former Utilization Review Employees who work or have worked for Concerto Healthcare, Inc. in the last three years and who were paid a salary and classified as exempt from overtime (FLSA Collective); and 3. requiring the Defendant to identify all putative FLSA Collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order conditionally certifying this action. The Plaintiffs contend that despite working over 40 hours per week, they were paid on a salary basis and never received overtime pay. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals all work(ed) as UREs for the Defendant during at least the last three years. UREs work either at home and/or at one of the Defendant's office locations throughout the country. Ashley Menth was employed by Defendant as a URE in Michigan from October 2017 to March 2019. Opt-in plaintiff Karen Richards was employed by Defendant as a URE in Michigan from July 2017 to August 2019. Concerto is a healthcare provider whose business consists of entering into contracts to administer healthcare coverage on behalf of its health insurance and health plan customers.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com - and - Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (281) 572-0727 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. Stacy Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 4925 Greenville, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 CORECIVIC INC: Fact Discovery Ongoing in Grae Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that fact discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267. In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") dated August 18, 2016, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") directed that, as each contract with privately operated prisons reaches the end of its term, the BOP should either decline to renew that contract or substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and the overall decline of the BOP's inmate population. In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ memorandum cites purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors as reasons for the DOJ directive. On February 21, 2017, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General issued a memorandum rescinding the DOJ's prior directive stating the memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice and impaired the BOP's ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system. Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016. In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the Company's public statements were false and/or misleading regarding the purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated. The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share price of the Company's stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative class of shareholders. On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2019, the District Court certified the class proposed by the plaintiff. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's appeal of the class certification order on August 23, 2019. The case is currently in the fact discovery phase of litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with the scale and experience needed to solve tough government challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee. CORECIVIC INC: Immigration Detainees' Suit Ongoing in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees. On May 31, 2017, two former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage law. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees at all CoreCivic ICE detention facilities. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees at the Company's ICE detention facilities in California. The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. Since this case was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed in other courts in California, Texas and Georgia. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself against all claims. CoreCivic said, "The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as losses are not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this stage of these lawsuits. However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse effect on CoreCivic's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with the scale and experience needed to solve tough government challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee. CREDIT UNION: Faces Anthes Consumer Suit in Texas District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Union of Texas. The case is captioned as Kasandra R. Anthes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Union of Texas, Case No. 429-03601-2020 (Tex. Dist., Collin Cty., July 28, 2020). The docket states that the case type is Consumer/Commercial/Debt. Credit Union of Texas provides financial services including car loans, home equity loans, mortgage loans, refinances, and personal loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica M. Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132-2411 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: agentile@shamisgentile.com CRST INT'L: Cervantes FLSA Suit Moved From D. Mass. to N.D. Iowa ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Cervantes and Adam St. Amour, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CRST International, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 1:20-cv-10106 (Filed March 20, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids) on Aug. 5, 2020. The Northern District of Iowa Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00075-CJW-KEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge CJ Williams. The lawsuit seeks redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay required minimum wages and unlawfully deducting amounts from the wages of employees that the Defendants misclassified as independent contractors. The Defendants include privately owned companies, CRST International, Inc. and CRST Expedited, Inc., which are owned and operated by related individuals and entities for a common business purpose: transportation of freight for CRST customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 - and - Michael M. Licata, Esq. Susan Martin, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC 4647 N. 32nd Street, #185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 - and - Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 The Defendants are represented by: Adam C. Smedstad, Esq. Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. James H. Hanson, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 W. Monroe Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7181 E-mail: candrewscavage@scopelitis.com jhanson@scopelitis.com - and - Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP 60 State Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 226-3852 DEFENSE TAX: Court Denies Amended Motion for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEFENSE TAX GROUP INC. and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01193-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the plaintiff's amended motion for class certification: "all persons within the United States to whom, between February 6, 2016 and the present, one or more text message(s) promoting Defendants' goods or services was sent using an automatic telephone dialing system by Defendant or an affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Defendant, and who did not provide Defendant prior express written consent to be sent such text message(s)." The Court recognizes the difficulty the Plaintiff faces in meeting her burden to show that class certification is appropriate given the Defendant's failure to appear. But Defendant's failure to appear does not lessen her burden. And the evidence the Plaintiff has submitted here is too sparse for the Court to conduct a "rigorous analysis" and become "satisfied" that Rule 23's requirements have been met. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. Defense Tax is a specialized tax relief advocate firm.[CC] DIANE EASTER: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Whitted Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES WHITTED, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DIANE EASTER, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury in her official capacity, Case No. 3:20-cv-00569-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order: 1. certifying a class, for settlement purposes, on behalf of: "any person incarcerated at FCI Danbury anytime from the Effective Date of the parties' Settlement Agreement, i.e., July 27, 2020, until the termination date of the Agreement, i.e., October 31, 2021, unless otherwise modified by the parties pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, who either (a) is a List One Inmate or List Two Inmate (as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement, or (b) possesses one or more underlying medical conditions which, according to current CDC guidance (i.e., the CDC guidance in effect at the time of the individual's home confinement review), either (I) places that inmate at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 ("Tier medical conditions"); or (ii) might place that inmate at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 ("Tier 2 medical conditions")"; 2. appointing James Whitted as Settlement Class Representative for settlement purposes only; 3. appointing David S. Golub and Jonathan M. Levine of Silver, Golub & Teitell LLP, Sarah French Russell and Tessa Bialek of the Quinnipiac University School of Law Legal Clinic, Marisol Orihuela of the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, and Alexandra Harrington of the Criminal Justice Advocacy Clinic, University at Buffalo School of Law, as Settlement Class Counsel for settlement purposes only"; and 4. approving the form and content of the proposed Settlement Notice. The Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury is a low-security United States federal prison for male and female inmates in Danbury, Connecticut. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice.[CC] DIMET INC: Faces Quintanilla et al. Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEONARDO QUINTANILLA, HECTOR MOREL-TAVERA, and PEDRO QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- DIMET INC. d/b/a BUDDY'S KOSHER DELICATESSEN, and REQUESTED MEHMET HAYAT, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03735 (E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Dimet Inc. Plaintiff Leonardo Quintanilla was employed by Defendants as cook and dishwasher from in or around March 2008 until in or around July 2020. Plaintiff Morel-Tavera was employed by Defendants as cook from in or around April 2000 until in or around July 2020. Plaintiff Pedro Quintanilla was employed by Defendants as dishwasher from in or around October 2010 until in or around July 2020. According to the complaint, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours, a violation of the spread of hours provisions contained in the NYLL. Further, 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. Dimet Inc. d/b/a Buddy's Koshner Delicatessen is a New York-based sandwich shop.[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 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DISCOUNT CAREGIVERS: Hernandez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ART HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT CAREGIVERS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07111 (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, Defendant transmitted unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (818) ***-2120 via SMS or MMS text messages for over at least the past year and continuing through the present even though without Plaintiff's prior express written consent. The SMS and/or MMS text messages sent by Defendant allegedly constituted "advertisements" and/or "telemarketing" material within the meaning of the applicable TCPA regulations. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that his privacy was invaded and he became distracted and aggravated everytime he receives Defendant's unsolicited text messages. Discount Caregivers is a cannabis delivery service serving the Northridge, California area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Parker, Esq. Kevin Cole, Esq. PARKER COLE, P.C. 6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207 West Hills, CA 91307 Tel: (818) 292-8800 Fax: (818) 292-8337 Emails: michael@parkercolelaw.com kevin@parkercolelaw.com DOLLY FOOD: Juarez et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages & OT, Tip Skimming ------------------------------------------------------------------ GERARDO JUAREZ, GUILLERMO MENDEZ, JOSE MARTINEZ CASALEZ, DAMIAN VALENCIA, HELDER MARTINEZ, and SABAS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLLY FOOD CORP. (D/B/A MOONSTRUCK EATERY) and RAJIV CHOWDHURY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06426 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failing to give the required spread of hours pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours, failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all their worked hours, and taking a tip credit for non-tipped duties. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dishwashers, delivery workers, cooks, and a food preparer at Moonstruck Eatery in New York approximately between 2005 and March 2020. Dolly Food Corp. is a company that operates and owns a diner called Moonstruck Eatery located at 250 East 58th Street New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ECUADOR: Has Violated Securities Laws, Contrarian et al. Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- CONTRARIAN EMERGING MARKETS, L.P.; GMO EMERGING COUNTRY DEBT FUND; GMO EMERGING COUNTRY DEBT INVESTMENT FUND PLC; and GMO EMERGING COUNTRY DEBT (UCITS) FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05890 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs brought the securities class action for the Defendant's violation of the federal securities laws arising from a coercive exchange, or tender offer in the amount of $17.4 billion of the Defendant's outstanding bonds (the "Proposal"), based on materially false and misleading statements made by the Defendant in a press release on July 27, 2020 (the "Press Release") and in the underlying transaction documents. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's false and misleading Press Release and statements are designed to deceive and mislead bondholders about the coercive nature of the tender and exchange offer, which deprives bondholders of key protections and subjects bondholders to harshly inequitable treatment should they decline to consent. If the tender offer goes forward based on this false and misleading information, the Court will be without power to unscramble the proverbial egg and restore the Plaintiffs and other bondholders to their previous positions. If the tender offer is permitted to go forward on the basis of the Defendant's false and misleading statements, the Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed. The Plaintiffs and other bondholders will be forced to either consent to the unfavorable terms of the Proposal -- which seeks to eviscerate the bargained-for protections that bondholders relied upon in deciding to invest in securities of the Republic -- or will risk facing the significantly less favorable treatment that the Proposal imposes upon non-tendering bondholders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Clark, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: chris.clark@lw.com EHEALTH INC: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Due August 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the lead plaintiff in the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.), is slated to file an amended complaint by August 25, 2020. On April 8, 2020 and April 29, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company, its chief executive officer, Scott N. Flanders, its chief financial officer, Derek N. Yung, and its chief operating officer, David K. Francis, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the company's accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member churn and the company's profitability during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020. The complaints allege that the company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit) punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated matter. Under the current schedule, the lead plaintiff will file an Amended Complaint by August 25, 2020. eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. ELEVATE CREDIT: Liable for Think Finance's Misconduct, Gibbs Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO, LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, SHARON BURNEY, CHASTITY MCNEIL, ALICIA PATTERSON, JERI BRENNAN, EARL BROWNE, KIMETRA BRICE, JILL NOVOROT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELEVATE CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00632-REP (E.D. Va., August 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfers under several state laws, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Florida Consumer Finance Laws, California Usury Laws, and Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant should be held responsible for the illegal lending scheme of its predecessor, Think Finance, which was sued for unlawful collection of high interest loans in the name of entities formed by Native American tribes. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated RICO by entering into a series of agreements, including Data Sharing and Support Agreement, financing agreements, a Shared Employees agreement, and Shared Services Agreement, by which the Defendant continued to aid, abet, assist, and facilitate Think Finance's misconduct after it was spun off in May 2014. As a successor and alter ego of Think Finance and by continuing to participate in and aid the enterprise, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to consumers, including the Plaintiffs. Elevate Credit Service, LLC is a company that offers online credit products with its principal office at 4150 International Plaza, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com - and – Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and – Anna Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com ENDURANCE INT'L: Approval of McGee Settlement Now Final ------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the period in which a settlement class member could appeal the order certifying and approving the settlement in the purported class action suit entitled, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., has lapsed without any class members filing an appeal, and the court's order is now final. On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Constant Contact. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and was premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The parties subsequently agreed to settle the matter on a class wide basis. On May 27, 2020, the court certified a settlement class and approved the settlement. The period in which a settlement class member could appeal that order lapsed without any class members filing an appeal, and the court's order is now final. The Company's contribution to the settlement pool was equal to the $1.5 million it reserved for this matter during the year ended December 31, 2018. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally. The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts. GEICO GENERAL: Day Sues Over Payoff of Licensed Attorney Judges --------------------------------------------------------------- ROY A. DAY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND AS CLASS ACTION ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 21st CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM P. BARR, Case No. 110904334 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., July 28, 2020), arises from the alleged cunning, misleading and deceptive conduct of the Defendants to payoff "licensed attorney judges" to deny that the law, facts and evidence exist when pertaining to the Plaintiff. The payoff includes cash in various forms to conceal and cover-up the illegal conduct. The alleged fraud creates a "two-tier" system of justice with the overlay to "tear-up" the Constitution of the State of Florida, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Plaintiff contends. Defendants GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 21st CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY are insurance carriers engaged in the business of issuing vehicle insurance in various states across the United States. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] GENERAL MOTORS: Hammerschmidt Sues Over Automobile Airbag Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HAMMERSCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-01773-DWF-BRT (D. Minn., August 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent omission, and violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the False Statement in Advertising Act, and the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactured, marketed and sold or leased the 2010 through 2011 Chevrolet Camaro vehicles in the United States with design or manufacturing defects in their airbag systems. The defect can cause the right front passenger frontal airbag to fail to deploy when it otherwise should which presents a grave safety hazard to consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an event of a crash. Despite numerous reports about the airbag defect, the Defendant has failed to notify consumers about it, offer to fix the problem, or to reimburse consumers who have incurred damages as a result of it. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about the defect, they would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. As a result of their reliance on the Defendant's omissions and/or misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in the value of their Class Vehicles. General Motors, LLC is an automobile manufacturing company with its principal place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (310) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com - and – Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com - and – Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com dmanning@glancylaw.com GLUMETZA ANTITRUST: Direct Purchasers Win Class Status ------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit re: GLUMETZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order on Aug. 15, 2020: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who directly purchased Glumetza or generic Glumetza from a defendant from May 6, 2012 until the date of this order" 2. confirming Shana Scarlett and Lauren Barnes of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen LLC, and Joseph Vanek of Sperling & Slater, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the class; and 3. directing the parties by August 31, 2020, to jointly submit a proposal for class notification with a plan to distribute class notice, including by first-class mail and internet notice. The Court said, "Though the proposed class definition turns on objective criteria, dates and purchases, it remains an open class. That is, by seeking to include within the class purchasers between May 2012 until the effects of the defendants' conduct ceased, the class by definition includes those who have not yet purchased Glumetza from a defendant. Obviously, until such purchase occurs, those purchasers remain unknown. And, until they become known, we cannot notify them of this and honor their decision to, if they so choose, opt-out. Thus, the class definition must be limited to those to whom we may provide effective notice at this time." This antitrust action arose from an alleged reverse-payment settlement of a patent infringement suit between brand and generic marketers of the diabetes drug Glumetza. The direct purchaser plaintiffs move for class certification. The consolidated cases include Case No. 19-05822 WHA, Case No. 19-06138 WHA, Case No. 19-06839 WHA, Case No. 19-07843 WHA, Case No. 19-08155 WHA, Case No. 20-01198 WHA, and Case No. 20-05251 WHA.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Pure Sweat Hits Monopoly of Android OS Apps ------------------------------------------------------- The case PURE SWEAT BASKETBALL, INC., an Illinois corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv- 05792 (N.D. Cal., August 17, 2020) alleges that Google has attained and maintained monopoly status in the U.S. market for Android OS app stores through a series of anticompetitive contracts, strategic abuses of its dominance in other Android software applications, deficits in consumer knowledge and information, and the cultivation and exploitation of device users' fear of malware. The lawsuit alleges that: 1. Google has attained monopoly status in the U.S. market for Android OS app stores in part by bundling the Google Play store with its other must-have apps. 2. Google maintains and reinforces its monopoly status in the field by banning the distribution of other Android app-sale clients in Google Play. 3. By so-called anti-fragmentation contractual terms, Google prohibits licensees of apps such as YouTube and Google Play from manufacturing or selling even a single smart device using a so-called forked version, i.e., a non-Google variant, of Android. 4. Google makes overblown, self-serving, and unjustifiable claims regarding security in order to dissuade consumers from downloading and trying competitors' app stores. Google has abused its unlawfully gained dominance to impose supracompetitive pricing: a default 30% service fee paid by developers on each sale of non-zero-priced Android OS app purchases made at its Google Play store, and, as the case may be, on sales of in-app digital addons, including subscriptions, distributed via apps sold in Google Play. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Sherman Act. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief to redress the injuries caused by Google's past and ongoing conduct, and it seeks injunctive relief to stop Google's ongoing improper, unlawful, and harmful behavior in the relevant markets. Plaintiff Pure Sweat Basketball is the developer of the Pure Sweat Basketball Workout App. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com robl@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 676-5845 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com HAMILTOM POINT: Brooks Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- TONY BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON POINT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC and HAMILTON POINT INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00913-BRW (E.D. Ark., August 7, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt and hourly-paid Maintenance Technician from February 3029 to the present. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other Maintenance Technicians regularly worked over 40 hours in a week and off-the-clock, but they were not paid lawful overtime by Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants pay them "comp time" which was paid out at a one-to-one ratio and sometimes they were required to use it to cover weekend shifts. Moreover, Defendants failed to include the value of the bonuses and the rent credit provided by Defendants to Plaintiff and other Maintenance Technicians when calculating their overtime rate. Hamilton Point Property Management, LLC is a wholly-owned by Hamilton Point Investments and provides property management services to Hamilton Point Investments' apartment properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com HOGAN SERVICES: Croskey et al. Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Croskey, et al., On behalf of themselves and other members of the general public similarly situated, v. Hogan Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03062-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional class certification of, and approving a court-supervised notice to, potential opt-in plaintiffs defined as: "all current and former Fleet Managers of the Defendants who were paid a salary during any workweek that they worked over 40 hours beginning three years prior to the filing date of this Stipulation and continuing through the date of the final disposition of this case." Hogan Services was founded in 1954. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-787-4878 Facsimile: 614-957-7515 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert J. Hingula, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-753-1000 Facsimile: 816-753-1536 E-mail: rhingula@polsinelli.com - and - Jeremy S. Young, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS 41 South High Street Huntington Center, 21st Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614-463-9770 Facsimile: 614-463-9792 E-mail: Jyoung@ralaw.com INTEL CORP: Thorsen Sues Over Decline in Securities' Market Value ----------------------------------------------------------------- James E. Thorsen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, ROBERT H. SWAN, GEORGE S. DAVIS, Case No. 5:20-cv-05549 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who have suffered significant losses and damages as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities between April 23, 2020, and July 23, 2020, inclusive. According to Intel, its 7-nanometer CPU technology is the next generation following Intel's 10-nanometer technology. Intel claims that 7-nanometer technology offers double the area efficiency of 10 nanometer products, and will offer 20% higher performance per watt. In May 2019, Intel projected to ship its first 7-nanometer products in 2021. On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed production delays for its 7-nanometer products after the Company had "identified a defect mode in its seven-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation." On this news, Intel's share price fell $9.81 per share, or approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (ii) that, as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (iii) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and (v) that, as a result, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Intel securities during the Class Period. Intel is a technology company that provides computing, networking, data storage, and communication solutions worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com IOWA PLAYHOUSE: Faces Grove Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Iowa ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANDREA GROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IOWA PLAYHOUSE, RONALD BERGERON and MICHAEL BERGERON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00027-SMR-CFB (S.D. Iowa, August 13, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated exotic dancers appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay after misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees and by refusing to re-hire the Plaintiff as an exotic dancer in retaliation for her pending wage-and-hour case against another strip club. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dancer at Playhouse between approximately August 2018 and October 2018, and returned to perform on amateur night on July 1, 2020. Iowa Playhouse is a strip club operator with its principal place of business in Council Bluffs, Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nate Willems, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON P.L.C. P.O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Telephone: (319) 363-5209 Facsimile: (319) 363-6664 E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com - and – Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com JET AVIATION: Reyes NJLAD Suit Moved From Super. Court to D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS REYES v. JET AVIATION/GENERAL DYNAMICS, KYLE O'CONNOR, JIM ERICKSON, ABC CORPS. 1-3, AND JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10 (fictitious persons not yet known), Case No. BER-L-2232-20 (Filed April 10, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 28, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09555-JMV-MF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is an action to recover damages for alleged violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the federal Family Medical Leave Act. Jet Aviation provides comprehensive business aviation services, custom completions and a global network of facilities to aircraft owners and operators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamison Mark, Esq. THE MARK LAW FIRM PLLC 675 Morris Avenue, Suite 102 The Defendants are represented by: Michael Nacchio, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 656.1600 E-mail: michael.nacchio@ogletree.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Favors Large Clients in PPP Loans, Ajira Says ------------------------------------------------------------- AJIRA AI LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04428 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2020) alleges unfavorable treatment in granting Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans to small businesses. According to the complaint, U.S. Congress' plan to aid small businesses was enacted on March 27, 2020. The Small Business Administration's ("SBA") Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses. As the federal government was ramping up to allow small businesses to apply for PPP loans, the Defendant decided to ensure its favored clients would be given special assistance to make sure their loan applications were submitted without a hitch. The Plaintiff is a small Illinois-based technology company without the clout and resources of the Defendant's favored clients. Due to the Defendant's prioritizing of its favored customers over the Plaintiff and the class, the Plaintiff was impeded in applying for a PPP loan through the Defendant, and ultimately, received no loan when the Defendant failed to accurately review the Plaintiff's documentation. As a result, the Plaintiff is now in dire financial straits. Despite knowing the Defendant's tactics would inevitably leave many businesses' applications unprocessed, the Defendant concealed its practices from the Plaintiff. It did so knowingly, out of a combination of elite favoritism and, to be sure, at least some additional profit. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides investment and banking services. The Company offers wealth planning, investing, credit, and other financial services. JPMorgan Chase Bank serves clients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kasif Khowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 8 South Michigan Ave. Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com - and - Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC 5473 Blair Road Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 890-0711 Facsimile: (214) 890-0712 E-mail: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Portillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- DELMY PORTILLO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07391 (C.D. Cal., August 17, 2020) alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for herself and other similarly situated employees overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. The action is brought by Plaintiff for herself and on behalf of other similarly situated employees who have been classified as Assistant Store Managers ("ASMs") at Kohl's stores in California. According to the complaint, Kohl's has misclassified Plaintiff, and other ASMs in these positions, as exempt under California law and has failed to pay them overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Defendants classify their ASMs as exempt executives in conscious disregard for the facts and the law. Defendants have at all times been fully aware that the primary duty of the ASMs is not management and that the law does not permit employers to classify employees as exempt executives unless their primary duty is management. Defendants also have been aware that ASMs work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. is a Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin-based department store retail chain, operated by Kohl's Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com LCS COMMUNITY: Stinson BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE STINSON and OCTAVIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT, LLC, LCS MOKENA LLC d/b/a CLARENDALE OF MOKENA, LLC and ALGONQUIN OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a CLARENDALE OF ALGONQUIN, Case No. 2020CH04505 (Filed June 9, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 5, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-04603 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendants required the Plaintiffs to "use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked," and that "the Defendants required the Plaintiffs and other employees to scan their hands in Defendants' biometric time clock each time they started and finished working each shift" in violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs are former employees of LCE.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com - and - David Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 E-mail dfish@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jody Kahn Mason, Esq. Jason A. Selvey, Esq. Jonathan B. Cifonelli, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312 787 4949 E-mail: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com Jonathan.Cifonelli@jacksonlewis.com LENDINGCLUB CORP: Appeal Filed in Shron Suit -------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is taking an appeal with respect to the court's decision in denying the company's motion to compel arbitration in Shron v. LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718. In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court in the State of New York (Shron v. LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718) alleging various claims including fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, et seq., based on allegations, among others, that the Company made misleading or inadequate statements or omissions in relation to the total cost and origination fee associated with loans available through the Company's platform. The plaintiff seeks to represent classes of similarly situated individuals in the lawsuit. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims on an individual basis. The Court denied that motion on July 13, 2020. The Company has filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Court's decision. The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations in the case. LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter." LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit entitled, Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153. In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California (Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153). The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law based on allegations that LendingClub recorded a call with plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded. Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by LendingClub without their knowledge and consent. LendingClub filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiff's claims, strike nationwide class allegations, and, alternatively, to stay the litigation. Rather than oppose that motion, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company again filed a motion to stay, or alternatively to dismiss certain of the claims in the amended complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations. That motion was heard by the Court on July 9, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to stay Plaintiff's California claims pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in a case involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's claim under Massachusetts law, and denying the Company's motion to strike Plaintiff's nationwide class allegations. LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter." LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Dismisses All Claims in Veal Suit --------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court in Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et al., No. 5:18-cv-02599, entered judgment and dismissed all claims in the case. In 2016, the Company received a formal request for information from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC commenced an investigation concerning certain of the Company's policies and practices and related legal compliance. On April 25, 2018, the FTC filed a complaint in the Northern District of California (FTC v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:18-cv-02454) alleging causes of action for violations of the FTC Act, including claims of deception in connection with disclosures related to the origination fee associated with loans available through the Company's platform, and in connection with communications relating to the likelihood of loan approval during the application process, and a claim of unfairness relating to certain unauthorized charges to borrowers' bank accounts. In May 2018, following the announcement of the FTC's litigation against the Company, putative shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the litigation in November 2018. On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint and adds additional allegations. On March 8, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the case filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. A hearing on these motions was held on September 26, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a written order granting defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2019, which modifies and adds certain allegations and drops one of the former officer defendants as a defendant in the case, but otherwise advances the same causes of action. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 28, 2020. The Court heard argument on this motion on April 30, 2020. On June 12, 2020, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motion without leave to amend, in part, and with leave to amend, in part. On July 27, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court indicating their intention not to file a Third Amended Complaint in this case and requesting that the Court enter judgment. The Court entered judgment and dismissed all claims in the case the same day. LendingClub said, "It is yet unclear whether the lead plaintiffs will seek to appeal the Court's judgment. The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations in the case. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sosa ADA Class Action Ongoing in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Sosa v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 1:20-cv-05256. In July 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sosa v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 1:20-cv-05256). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and various state law claims based on allegations that the plaintiff, who alleges he is visually-impaired, encountered access barriers in visiting LendingClub's website that denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the services of the website. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals in the lawsuit and seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, among other relief. LendingClub said, "This case is in its early stages. LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter." LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LONGHORN PIZZA: Delivery Drivers Seek Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------- Amanda Kennedy and Emanuel Magana, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Longhorn Pizza, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00223, (W.D. Tex., August 4, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is part of an enterprise that operates 68 Domino's Pizza restaurants in Colorado, Wyoming, California, and Texas. Kennedy and Magana are delivery drivers at the Longhorn Domino's stores who claim to be inadequately reimbursed for delivery-related expenses, thereby rendering their pay below the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Valdez, Esq. DAVIE & VALDEZ P.C. 1801 N. Stanton El Paso, TX 79902 Tel: (915) 838-1100 Email: john@davievaldez.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan J. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com Website: www.billerkimble.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $4.75 Million Paid for Kramer Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company made a payment of $4.75 million to the Kramer settlement administrator for distribution to class members. In November 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the "Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all current and former store managers, all others with similar job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and who worked for the Company in the State of California (collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices (the "Kramer matter"). The Company reached settlement for this matter in the third quarter of 2019. Payment of $4.75 million was made to the settlement administrator on April 6, 2020, for distribution to class members. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid for Class Certification in Savidis Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Savidis Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint to the date of class certification (the "California Employee Class"), as well as a subclass of class members who separated their employment within three years of the filing of the suit to the date of class certification (the "Waiting Time Subclass"). On April 9, 2020, Lumber Liquidators was served with a lawsuit filed by Tanya Savidis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the "Savidis Plaintiffs"). Ms. Savidis filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on March 6, 2020, on behalf of all current and former Lumber Liquidators employees employed as non-exempt employees. The complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation within the required time, and engaging in unfair business practices (the "Savidis matter"). On or about May 22, 2020, the Savidis Plaintiffs provided notice to the California Department of Industrial Relations requesting they be permitted to seek penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged violations asserted in the Complaint. The Savidis Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint to the date of class certification (the "California Employee Class"), as well as a subclass of class members who separated their employment within three years of the filing of the suit to the date of class certification (the "Waiting Time Subclass"). The Savidis Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, seek statutory penalties, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages, benefits, and penalties, interest, and other damages. The Company disputes the Savidis Putative Class Employees' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court Reconsiders Calculation of Lawyer's Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is reconsidering how attorney's fees for the class lawyers should be calculated for the settlement that includes cash and vouchers. Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various United States federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products. The purported classes consisted of all United States consumers that purchased the relevant products during certain time periods. Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and unquantified damages, including restitution and actual, compensatory, consequential and, in certain cases, punitive damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") transferred and consolidated the federal cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the "Formaldehyde MDL"). Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and other district courts located in the place of residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of United States consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products challenging certain representations about the durability and abrasion class ratings of such products. These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases; however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory and consequential), as well as punitive damages. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL"). On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to fund $22 million (the "MDL Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in 2017. On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in June 2018, the Company paid $0.5 million for settlement administration costs, which is part of the MDL Cash Payment, to the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9, 2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into the plaintiffs’ settlement escrow account. On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Appeals Court") challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court. Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals. On March 10, 2020, the Appeals Court upheld the order approving the settlement agreement, and vacated the award of attorney's fees, requiring the Virginia Court to reconsider the award of attorneys’ fees to the lawyers representing the class. The Appeals Court determined that the Settlement Agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and upheld the district court's approval order. On remand, the Virginia Court is reconsidering how attorney's fees for the class lawyers should be calculated for the settlement that includes cash and vouchers. The issue has been briefed by the class and the objectors. The legal exposure to the company is the same, and the company is pleased that the settlement agreement was upheld. Vouchers, which generally have a three-year life, will be distributed by the administrator upon order of the Virginia Court. To date, the Company's obligations related to Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable of $36 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the issuance of vouchers. If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent. Lumber Liquidators said, "Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5 million as a deposit in the caption "Deposit for Legal Settlements" on its condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company has no liability accrued related to the appeals." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Deadline Extended to March 2021 ------------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the deadline for discovery in the class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie, has again been extended to March 31, 2021. In August 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly situated current and former employees (collectively, the "Mason Putative Class Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting conditional certification for all store managers and store managers in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations period. In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The litigation is in the discovery stage, which was extended by the Court from May 2020 to December 18, 2020, and due to COVID-19 complications impacting discovery, the deadline has again been extended to March 31, 2021. The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees’ claims and continues to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Visnack Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by Michael Visnack, by alleging failure to pay wages and overtime, wage statement violations, meal and rest break violations, unpaid reimbursements and waiting time, and engaging in unfair business practices. On June 29, 2020, Michael Visnack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the "Visnack Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of all current and former store managers, and others similarly situated. The Complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime, wage statement violations, meal and rest break violations, unpaid reimbursements and waiting time, and engaging in unfair business practices (the "Visnack matter"). The Visnack Plaintiffs seek certification of a class period beginning September 20, 2019, through the date of Notice of Class Certification, if granted. The Visnack Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek unspecified amounts for each of the causes of action such as unpaid wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, payroll record and wage statement violations, failure to reimburse expenses and waiting time, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company is evaluating the Visnack Putative Class Employees' claims and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. MACY'S WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- PEDRO AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC. D/B/A MACY'S; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06804 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Ayala was employed by the Defendant as manager. Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores. The Company offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty products, and house wares. Macy's West Stores serves customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com - and - Michael C. Christman, Esq. MACY'S LAW DEPARTMENT 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 342-6334 Facsimile: (314) 342-6366 E-mail: michael.christman@macys.com MDL 2481: Ampal Inc. Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ampal, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-3116, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013, and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-2612, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Ampal, Inc.; Custom Aluminum Products Incoroprated, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated; and Claridge Products and Equipment, Incorporated, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON, LLP 500 5th Avenue New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 E-mail: CLovell@lshllp.com - and - Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Robert Michael Rothman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: RRothman@rgrdlaw.com Defendants-Respondents GS Power Holdings LLC, Metro International Trade Services LLC, Metro International Trade Services L.L.C., Pacorini Metals USA L.L.C., GS Power Holdings LLC, Metro International Trade Services, LLC, GS Power Holdings LLC, Henry Bath LLC, and Glencore Ltd. are represented by: Suhana S. Han, Esq. Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq. Jennifer H. Blecher, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: hans@sullcrom.com peppermanr@sullcrom.com - and - Boris Bershteyn, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3834 E-mail: boris.bershteyn@skadden.com - and - Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 E-mail: gcurtner@rshc-law.com - and - David William Haller, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1057 E-mail: dhaller@cov.com - and - Eliot Lauer, Esq. CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 696-6192 E-mail: elauer@curtis.com - and - Robert D. Wick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter, 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: rwick@cov.com MEARS GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Charpentier Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JARED CHARPENTIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEARS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02004-K (N.D. Tex., July 29, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Charpentier was employed by the Defendants as laborer. Mears Group Inc. provides a variety of civil engineering services. The Company offers pipeline integrity, engineering testing, construction services, and electric and power industry integrity services for river, railroad, pipeline and utility, shore approaches, and intersections. Mears Group provides its construction and engineering services globally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 251-4157 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Moreau Seeks OT Pay for Nurse Practitioners --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH MOREAU, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. MEDICUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC and MEDICUS HOSPITALIST SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-02893 (S.D. Tex., August 17, 2020) alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, and other workers like her, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff works for the Defendant as a nurse practitioner since April of 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and others similarly situated, regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not paid overtime. The Defendant misclassified these workers as independent contractors and paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a work week with no overtime in violation of the FLSA. Medicus Healthcare Solutions, LLC provides staffing solutions for the medical industry throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, 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 rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com MONROE TOWNSHIP, NJ: Faces J.A. Suit in District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe Township Board of Education, et al. The case is captioned as J.A., individually and on behalf of her minor child J.A., v. MONROE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; KEVIN DEHMER; NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW MARYANN BOGAN, Administrative Law Judge; JOSEPH A. ASCIONE, Administrative Law Judge; and DOES 1-250 SIMILARLY SITUATED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, Case No. 1:20-cv-09498-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., July 28, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of Handicapped Child Act. The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Education. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman. The Monroe Township School District is a comprehensive community public school district that serves students in kindergarten through twelfth grade from Monroe Township, in Middlesex County, New Jersey, United States. The New Jersey Department of Education administers state and federal aid programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and non-public elementary and secondary school children in the state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Craig Thurston, Esq. THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC 100 Springdale Road A3, PMB 287 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 335-5291 E-mail: rthurston@schoolkidslawyer.com MONTGOMERY, NY: Hill & Rodgers Seek Initial Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as PERRY HILL and JAMES RODGERS, on behalf of a Certified Class of Other Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, et. al., Case No. 9:14-cv-00933-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on September 3, 2020, for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement. The case alleges violation of prisoner civil rights. Montgomery County is a county in the U.S. state of New York.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the certified class are: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: 518 434 1718 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason Rathod, Esq. Ashley M. Pileka, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202 470 3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com NCAA: Sterling Sues Over Disregard for Athletes' Health & Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Sterling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02110-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Georgia Institute of Technology student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendants failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Georgia Tech football players from the long-term dangers associated with them, according to the complaint. The Defendants did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless former Georgia Tech football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Glenn Sterling is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Greensboro.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Thomas Sues Over Reckless Disregard for Health of Athletes ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Thomas and Justine Buries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02099-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of New Mexico State University student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiffs experienced, the Defendants failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiffs and other NMSU football players from the long-term dangers associated with them, according to the complaint. The Defendants did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs and countless former NMSU football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, the Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. The Plaintiffs are natural persons and a citizen of the State of New Mexico, and a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Greensboro.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NCAA: Wiljanen Sues Over Disregard for Athletes' Health & Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thor Wiljanen, on behalf of Roy Wiljanen, who is incapacitated, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02094-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of University of Louisville student-athletes. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendants failed to implement adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Louisville football players from the long-term dangers associated with them, according to the complaint. The Defendants did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless former Louisville football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable. Plaintiff Thor Wiljanen is a natural person and citizen of the State of Kentucky, who brings this lawsuit on behalf of Roy Wiljanen, a natural person and Kentucky citizen, over who he has a durable power of attorney. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football program at Greensboro.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: 713.554.9099 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com NEW YORK CITY, NY: E.D.N.Y. Dismisses Syville Civil Rights Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum & Order dismissing the case captioned ALPHONSO SYVILLE v. CITY OF NEW YORK, BLAKE MICA SHELTER, DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES (NICK), et al., Case No. 18-CV-3341 (KAM) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.). On February 9, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Alphonso Syville filed this action against Defendants Blake Mica Homeless Shelter, City of New York, Director of Social Services "Nick" at Blake Mica Homeless Shelter, and Case Manager "Ms. Mosley" and other, anonymous employees of Blake Mica Homeless Shelter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 7, 2018, the case was transferred to this Court. The Court grants the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of this Memorandum and Order. For the reasons set in the Memorandum and Order, the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a duplicative action in this Court (Syville v. City of New York, No. 18-CV-1761 (KAM) (LB). By Memorandum and Order in 18-CV-1761 dated June 11, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class action certification, dismissed, without prejudice, the complaint as to the forty other named plaintiffs; dismissed the complaint as to Mr. Syville's claims against the City of New York, the Department of Homeless Services and the Blake Avenue Shelter and its employees; and granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in 18-CV-1761 within 30 days, and, on July 16, 2018, the Court sua sponte granted the Plaintiff an extension to file an amended complaint by August 3, 2018, with a warning that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the action. The Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the 18-CV-1761 action and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. This Action, originally filed in the Southern District of New York, raises nearly identical claims concerning conditions at the Blake Avenue Shelter as the Plaintiff's prior action. According to the Memorandum & Order, although the Plaintiff names, in the instant complaint, the Director of Social Services and his case manager at the Blake Avenue Shelter, who were not named in the prior complaint in 18-CV-1761, the complaint in the instant action, 18-CV-3341, suffers from the same deficiencies as the prior complaint. The Blake Avenue Shelter is operated by a non-profit organization, SUS, and is therefore considered a private actor not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for the Plaintiff's alleged constitutional or civil rights violations. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims for the reasons discussed in the Court's prior Memorandum and Order dated June 11, 2018, in 18-CV-1761. Because the Court has previously entered judgment against the Plaintiff in 18-CV-1761 concerning the identical asserted claims, the Court dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint in this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal, citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against the Plaintiff and close this case. Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to send, by e-mail, a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the judgment to the pro se Plaintiff, who has consented to receive electronic service via the ECF system, and to note service on the docket. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaqgfj37 from Leagle.com. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Dominguez in Gulino Bias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated June 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2401, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Elisa Colon Dominguez is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Emeagwali in Gulino Bias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated June 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2434, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick Emeagwali is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the the motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated class action suit led by Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi remains pending. In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson. Another lawsuit, which alleged similar facts but also named other Nielsen officers, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September 2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York in December 2018. The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead plaintiff for the putative class. The operative complaint was filed on September 27, 2019, and asserts violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false and materially misleading statements relating to the outlook of Nielsen's Buy (now "Connect") segment, Nielsen's preparedness for changes in global data privacy laws and Nielsen's reliance on third-party data. Nielsen moved to dismiss the operative complaint on November 26, 2019. Briefing of Nielsen's motion concluded on February 26, 2020. In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen's current and former officers and directors. The derivative lawsuit alleges that the named officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with factual assertions substantially similar to those in the putative class action complaint. The derivative lawsuit further alleges that certain officers and directors engaged in trading Nielsen stock based on material, nonpublic information. By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the derivative lawsuit has been stayed pending resolution of Nielsen's motion to dismiss the aforementioned securities litigation. Nielsen intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Nielsen said, "Based on currently available information, Nielsen believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these actions and that their resolution is not likely to have a material adverse effect on Nielsen's business, financial position, or results of operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom. NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Ongoing in Maryland & New York ------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that XOOM Energy, LLC (XOOM) continues to defend class action suits pending in Maryland and New York. The plaintiffs generally claim that they did not receive the savings they were promised in their natural gas and electricity bills. The parties in the Maryland lawsuit are briefing summary judgment and class certification. In the New York case, XOOM filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on September 21, 2018, later entering judgment in XOOM's favor on September 24, 2018. The plaintiffs in the New York case appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 26, 2019, the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded to the district court with instructions that plaintiffs be permitted to proceed on their proposed amended complaint. NRG Energy said, "This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the acquisition." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an integrated power company in the United States. The company is involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Oasis Petroleum Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Oasis Petroleum LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC. On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("OP LLC"), was named as a defendant in the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code ("Title 29") as the result of OP LLC's alleged practice of paying the plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees overtime at rates less than required by applicable law, or failing to pay for certain overtime hours worked. The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a collective action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a class action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at least one workday. No motion has been filed for class certification, and the Company cannot predict whether such a motion will be filed or a class certified. The Company believes that Mr. Solomon's claims are without merit and that OP LLC has complied with its obligations under the FLSA and Title 29. OP LLC has filed an answer denying all of Mr. Solomon's claims and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Oasis said, "The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate outcome or resolutions of such matter. If such matter were to be determined adversely to the Company's interests, or if the Company were forced to settle such matter for a significant amount, such resolution or settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Oasis Petroleum Inc. is an independent exploration and production (E&P) company focused on the acquisition and development of onshore, unconventional crude oil and natural gas resources in the United States. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC (OPNA) and Oasis Petroleum Permian LLC (OP Permian) conduct the company's exploration and production activities and own its crude oil and natural gas properties located in the North Dakota and Montana regions of the Williston Basin and the Texas region of the Delaware Basin, respectively. The company is based in Houston, Texas. ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Ruling in GTx Merger Suits Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has been filed in the New York actions related to the company's merger with GTx, Inc. On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc. ("GTx"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), with privately-held Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. ("Private Oncternal") and Grizzly Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"). Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). On June 7, 2019, the Merger was completed. GTx changed its name to Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., and Private Oncternal, which remains as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, changed its name to Oncternal Oncology, Inc. Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions"). In 2019, the Delaware Actions were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "New York Actions"). The New York Actions name as defendants the company and its former board of directors. The New York Actions allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with our filing of the registration statement in connection with the Merger. On September 16, 2019, plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed an amended complaint, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to the value GTx's stockholders received in the Merger. The amended complaint seeks damages and other unspecified relief. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and on February 14, 2020, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On June 23, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff did not amend his complaint by the July 14, 2020 deadline. On July 22, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from any of these matters. Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of cancer. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California. OPEN TEXT: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Dismiss Carbonite Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Open Text Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit related to Carbonite, Inc.'s Server Backup VM Edition, are awaiting the court's decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite Inc. (Carbonite), a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class action complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer, Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the designation of the action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna Complaint, the "Securities Actions"). On November 21, 2019, the court consolidated the Securities Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel. On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019. The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10, 2020. The motion was fully briefed in June 2020 and awaits the court's decision. Open Text said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this action and are unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from this proceeding." Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and sharing business information from various devices. The Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada. ORGANIFI LLC: Court Denies Liou Bid to Remand Suit -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case captioned GLENN LIOU, Plaintiff, v. ORGANIFI, LLC et al., Defendants. Case No.: 20-cv-1077-CAB-DEB. (S.D. Cal.), to the San Diego County Superior Court. Plaintiff Glenn Liou filed this putative class action in San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of himself and all persons who have purchased Organifi's Green Juice product. The complaint purported to assert only state law claims against Defendants. Defendants filed a demurrer in state court; Instead of opposing the demurrer, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC). Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC in Superior Court on February 14, 2020. Because of delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the demurrer to the FAC was not heard in Superior Court before Defendant filed a notice of removal on June 12, 2020. Plaintiff now moves for remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) on the ground that removal was untimely because the notice of removal was filed more than 30 days after the FAC was filed on January 6, 2020. Federal jurisdiction under CAFA has three elements: (1) there must be minimal diversity of citizenship between the parties, (2) the proposed class must have at least 100 members, and (3) the amount in controversy must 'exceed[] the sum or value of $5,000,000. Plaintiff argues that Organifi did not use a reasonable amount of intelligence to ascertain that more than $5,000,000 was in controversy based on the FAC. However, the Court says none of the allegations in the FAC indicate that this jurisdictional minimum was satisfied. Plaintiff claims that his allegation that Organifi's annual revenues have been between $18 million to $50 million put Defendants on notice that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. But considering that Organifi sells an array of products, its total revenues do not reveal sufficient information about its sales of the Product at issue in this lawsuit to ascertain the class' potential damages, the Court says. According to the Court, even Plaintiff's efforts to calculate the amount in controversy from allegations in the FAC (1) that the alleged the number of class members is likely in the tens of thousands and (2) that a one-month supply of the Product costs $70, yields a total of only $1.4 million. Plaintiff contends that Defendants could have applied a 2:1 punitive damages multiplier and added 25% for attorneys fees to raise the total matter in controversy over $5,000,000. Yet, Plaintiff's arguments for the amount of punitive damages and attorney's fees are based not on allegations in the FAC but on caselaw indicating that plaintiffs in similar cases had used similar ratios. Had the FAC expressly alleged that Plaintiff sought punitive damages of at least twice the amount of compensatory damages along with attorney's fees of 25% of the total of compensatory and punitive damages, Plaintiff's position would be stronger. The FAC does not include such allegations, however, and Defendants are not obligated to supply information which the plaintiff omitted, the Court says. Accordingly, even accepting Plaintiff's argument that Defendants could have ascertained that $1.4 million in compensatory damages was in controversy from the four corners of the FAC, that amount is well below that jurisdictional threshold. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 6, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyc6f7y6 from Leagle.com ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing on Riche Settlement Set for Sept. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court overseeing Riche v. Pappas, et al., has scheduled a hearing date for the review of the comprehensive settlement package and stipulation of settlement on September 16, 2020. Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S. Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG and the individual members of the USG board of directors. All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018). An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing damages. On March 27, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action, without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties. On June 3, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and stipulation of settlement was filed with the court for approval. The court has scheduled a hearing date for its review on September 16, 2020. The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Injunction Sought Against Phoenix Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in a class action in Israel has asked the Tel Aviv court to issue an Anti-Suit Injunction against Phoenix Insurance, the lead plaintiff in the United States case, instructing it to, inter alia, discontinue acting on behalf of the Israeli class members in the matter. On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11 officers and directors. The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and May 13, 2018". The motion alleges that the Company and other respondents violated Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, because they allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in the Company's financial statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its accounting policies and procedures, even though the Company's internal controls had material weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to the Company's net income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018, analogous to the report that was released in the United States on May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its 2017 annual report. The Company had filed agreed motions from time to time to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel in light of the United States case (Mac Costas). On June 30, 2020, pursuant to the execution and submission of a settlement agreement to the United States court for approval, which resolves the matters raised with respect to the entire class of shareholders (whether trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange or U.S. stock exchange), the Company filed a motion informing the Tel Aviv court of the settlement. On July 2, 2020, a Plaintiff in the Tel Aviv action filed a motion requesting the Israeli court to issue an Anti-Suit Injunction against Phoenix Insurance, the lead plaintiff in the United States case, instructing it to, inter alia, discontinue acting on behalf of the Israeli class members in the matter. Ormat said, "The Company considers that it has strong legal defenses and it is not probable that the request for an Anti-Suit Injunction will be granted. The potential amount that the Company may bear in this context cannot be reasonably estimated at this time." Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. PARK HOLDING: Fails to Timely Pay Earned Wages, Carrera Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JOAQUIN CARRERA, JUAN RAMIREZ, ARREDONDO FRANCISCO, and EUNICE YVETTE RICHIE v. PARK HOLDING (PHI) SERVICE, LLC; PARK 'N FLY, LLC; PARK 'N FLY, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS PARK 'N FLY, INC. (DELAWARE); PARK HOLDING, INC.; PNF-LAX, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV29632 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 5, 2020), is a Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 representative action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the State of California seeking civil penalties associated with the Defendants' violations of the Labor Code, including failing to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages. The Plaintiffs and other current and former aggrieved California-based non-exempt employees allege that the Defendants failed to give written notice of mass layoffs; to pay split shift premiums, and to provide complete and accurate wage statements. Park Holding Inc. is a consumer services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Anwar D. Burton, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com aburton@lealwfirm.com PATENAUDE & FELIX: Harrisbishop Hits Deceptive Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------------- BUETRICE HARRISBISHOP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., a California Professional Corporation; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07122 (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has an alleged incurred and defaulted financial obligation to TD Bank, USA, N.A. as a successor in interest to Target National Bank. According to the complaint, the creditor of the Target Obligation either directly or through intermediate transactions assigned or transferred the debt to Defendant for collection. Consequently, Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff on or about August 8, 2019. But, the letter is materially false, deceptive, and misleading because it falsely suggests to Plaintiff that the amount of the debt will increase due to interest, late charges, and other charges which are undisclosed amount. The complaint asserts that Defendant's collection letter is actually a computer-generated, mass-produced, and sent to various consumers with alleged debt without any meaningful attorney review or involvement at all. Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. is a high-volume debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kian Mottahedeh, Esq. SM LAW GROUP, APC 16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 660 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 855-5950 Fax: (818) 855-5952 Email: Kian@smlawca.com POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ PolarityTE, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the "Moreno Complaint"). On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No. 2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the "Lawi Complaint"). Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as lead plaintiff. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"), and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi as the lead plaintiff. On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also ordered that the lead plaintiff file and serve a consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after February 1, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 2, 2019, and asserted essentially the same violations of Federal securities laws recited in the original complaints. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company filed a reply to the opposition on September 13, 2019. A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on November 19, 2019; no order has been issued to date. PolarityTE said, "At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. POSTMATES INC: Rogers Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Richard Rogers filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Richard Rogers v. Postmates, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05619-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending automated text message advertisements to cellular telephone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On April 8, 2019, the Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, an automated text message offering its "gig economy," courier-connection services without the Plaintiff's prior express consent or prior express written consent, and without providing the Plaintiff a mechanism to stop receiving such messages in the future, the lawsuit says. Postmates is an American logistics company that operates a network of couriers who deliver goods locally. As of February 2019, Postmates operates in 2,940 U.S. cities. The appellate case is captioned as Richard Rogers v. Postmates, Inc., Case No. 20-16529, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Richard Rogers' opening brief is due on October 13, 2020; -- Appellee Postmates, Inc.'s answering brief is due on November 13, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RICHARD ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - Yevgeniy Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com Defendant-Appellee POSTMATES, INC. is represented by: David J. Kaminski, Esq. CARLSON & MESSER LLP 5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 242-2200 E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com - and - Lisa Messner, Esq. MAC MURRAY & SHUSTER LLP 6530 West Oval Campus, Suite 210 New Albany, OH 43054 Telephone: (614) 939-9955 E-mail: lmessner@mslawgroup.com RAWLINGS SPORTING: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Sotelo v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-09166-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of California residents that bought baseball bats manufactured by Rawlings, asserting several consumer protection claims against Rawlings. The Court said, "the Defendant's argument that Sotelo lacks the necessary standing to certify an injunctive-relief class raises an issue of mootness. As Sotelo concedes, the Defendant's 2020 lineup of bats do not contain a sticker weight, and for those bats that include a drop, there is a disclaimer stating that "drop is not intended to and should not be relied upon to calculate the actual weight of this bat as sold." Sotelo argues that the bats nonetheless "continue to misrepresent weight" because: (1) the disclaimer is unclear; and (2) "consumers have an objective understanding of how weight drop is calculated" and that they will ignore the disclaimer and rely on that objective understanding to calculate a weight. The Court disagrees. The disclaimer statement is very clear that the bat's drop should not be used to calculate the scale weight and Sotelo has not offered any evidence to support his claim that consumers would ignore the disclaimer. Accordingly, Sotelo has not alleged any misrepresentation where Defendant has omitted any sticker weight and has provided this clear disclaimer. For these reasons, the Court finds that there is no present harm to enjoin and denies Sotelo's request to certify an injunctive-relief class." The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Rawlings, claiming that Rawlings has misrepresented the actual weights of its bats. According to Sotelo, the actual weight of one of Defendant's bats when measured using a scale is often heavier than the sticker weight or the weight that is calculated using the bat's listed length and drop. Sotelo argues that this discrepancy harmed him and the proposed class members, who, had they known about it, would not have purchased the bats that they did. Rawlings is a manufacturer, marketer and seller of sporting goods, including baseball bats. It is responsible for the labeling, packaging, and quality control of its baseball bats.[CC] REALNETWORKS INC: Napster to Pay Claims in Next 12 Months --------------------------------------------------------- RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that valid claims are expected to be paid by Napster in the next 12 months. In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called "mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted musical works." On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement terms during a mediation session. The long form Settlement Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019. The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be calculated on a claims-made basis. In May 2019, public notice was posted about the settlement informing purported class members that they could make claims or object to the settlement, and the claims period ended on December 31, 2019. The final calculation is not yet complete, but based on preliminary results, the claimed damages are not expected to be material. Valid claims are currently expected to be paid by Napster in the next 12 months. On January 18, 2019, RealNetworks acquired an additional 42% interest in Rhapsody International, Inc. (doing business as Napster) which brought our aggregate ownership to 84% of Napster's outstanding equity, thus giving RealNetworks a majority voting interest. RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media. RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. ROOFLINE INC: Faces Tello Class Suit in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roofline, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JOSE TELLO, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. ROOFLINE INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS ROOFLINE SUPPLY & DELIVERY, an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20CV368802 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 28, 2020). Roofline was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of roofing, siding, and insulation materials.[BN] RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Underway in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al. On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.; Case No RIC1804127). "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend this matter," the Company said. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida. SEALED AIR: UA Local 13's Securities Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund. On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On June 4, 2020, the complaint was amended to remove all individual defendants other than the Company's former CFO and to add a plaintiff, and on July 13, 2020, the complaint was further amended to identify a total of four plaintiffs. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's hiring of Ernst & Young LLP as its independent auditors and concerning the Company's corporate policies and procedures. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 17, 2014 and June 20, 2019. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Sealed Air Corporation provides food safety and security, and product protection solutions worldwide. It was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: Fails to Pay Guards' Wages, Williams Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TAJE WILLIAMS and ALEXANDER DELEON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SECURITY ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES l-50, inclusive, Case No. RG20069008 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods, to indemnify, and to pay all wages for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt security guards. Mr. Williams continuously worked for the Defendants from August 1, 2019, until when the Defendants relocated him to another worksite in Vallejo, California. Mr. DeLeon continuously worked for the Defendants as a full-time employee from that time until February of 2019, when he began to work for the Defendants on a part-time basis. The Defendants operate a security agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Carl J. Kaplan, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 E-mail: David@spivaklaw.com carl@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com SELECT FUNDING: Greene Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-07333 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant repeatedly called his cellular phone number via an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to market its services without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result of the Defendant's unauthorized phone calls, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by incurring certain cellular telephone charges and invading their privacy. Select Funding, LLC is a financing company that focuses on lending money to small businesses, with a principal address located at 26775 Malibu Hills Road, Calabasas, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 E-mail: Jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com - and – Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com SNOW TEETH: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SNOW TEETH WHITENING, LLC,, Case No. 2:20-cv-03599 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired consumers. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.trysnow.com/,and the resulting denial of equal access to the goods and services offered, thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Because its Web site is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA. The Defendant's Web site contains various and multiple access barriers that make it extremely difficult--if not impossible--for blind and visually-impaired consumers to attempt to complete a transaction. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to initiate a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who suffers from what constitutes a "qualified disability" under the ADA and thus requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. The Defendant is an oral care retailer, and operates as an online retailer specializing in developing and producing a wide array of unique teeth-whitening products, as well as other unique oral care products, such as lip exfoliators and charcoal floss.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com SONIC DRIVE: Henderson Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ---------------------------------------------------------- TYAIRE HENDERSON, as natural parent, legal guardian and next of kin of AMAREUS "AJ" HENDERSON, a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, POPLAR, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, PERKINS, A LIMITED PARTNERSHP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, COVINGTON PIKE, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS-OVERTON, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, KIRBY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, MENDENHALL, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, SUMMER AVENUE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, STAGE RD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, GETWELL, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, HWY 64, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, GERMANTOWN PWKY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, LAKELAND, TN, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, YALE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, COLLIERVILLE, TENNESSEE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, SHELBY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, HWY 70, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, WINCHESTER, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, TN, N. HOUSTON LEVEE, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN ATOKA, TN, LLC (A/K/A SONIC PROPERTIES OF MEMPHIS), SONIC SONIC DRIVE IN, SOUTHAVEN-AIRWAYS, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, SOUTHAVEN-GOODMAN ROAD, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE-IN, OXFORD, MS - UNIVERSITY, LLC; SONIC DRIVE-IN, OXFORD, MS, WEST JACKSON, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, OLIVE BRANCH, HACKS CROSS, LLC; SONIC DRIVE-IN, PONTOTOC, MS, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, ROBINSONVILLE, MS, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, WATER VALLEY, MS, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, HORN LAKE, MS, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, WYNNE, ARKANSAS, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, HERNANDO, MS, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, BOONEVILLE, MS, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, TUPELO, MS, N GLOSTER, LLC; SONIC DRIVE IN, CORINTH, MISSISSIPPPI, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SONIC DRIVE IN, OLIVE BRANCH, MS, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and RONALD SOLBERG, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02604-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn., August 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees the applicable overtime pay for their off-the-clock worked hours. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid employee to prepare food and drink items at a Sonic franchised restaurant since 2017. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Poplar, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Perkins, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Covington Pike, a Tennessee LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis-Overton, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Kirby, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Mendenhall, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Summer Avenue, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Stage RD, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Getwell, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, HWY 64, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Germantown PKWY, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Lakeland, TN, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Millington, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Yale, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Collierville, Tennessee, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Shelby, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, HWY 70, a Tennessee Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Winchester, a Tennessee LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, TN, N. Houston Levee, a Tennessee LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Memphis, Atoka, TN, a Tennessee LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Southaven, Goodman Road, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive In, Southaven-Airways, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Oxford, MS-University, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Oxford, MS, West Jackson, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Olive Branch, Hacks Cross, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Pontotoc, MS, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Robinsonville, MS, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Water Valley, MS, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Horn Lake, MS, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Wynne, Arkansas, an Arkansas Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Hernando, MS, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Booneville, MS, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Tupelo, MS, N. Gloster, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Corinth, Mississippi, a Mississippi LLC is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. Sonic Drive-In, Olive Branch, MS, a Mississippi Limited Partnership is a fast food restaurant with its headquarters located at 3687 S. Mendenhall Road, Memphis, Tennessee. [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 Attorneys at Law 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 SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Amend Suit, for Class Status Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint as well as a motion to certify a class in Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et al., is pending. A putative representative action suit was filed against DST Systems (DST), the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan") and certain of DST's present and/or former officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of the Plan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et al., naming as defendants DST, the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Plan and certain of DST’s present and/or former officers and directors (collectively the "DST Defendants"). On September 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a partial dismissal related to certain claims against the DST Defendants concerning the 401k portion of the Plan. On October 31, 2019, the DST Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint and asserted crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. ("Ruane"). On January 9, 2020, Ruane filed an amended answer to the amended complaint asserting crossclaims for contribution and/or indemnification against DST. Both DST and Ruane have filed answers denying the crossclaims asserted against them. On April 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint as well as a motion to certify a class. The DST Ferguson Defendants did not oppose those motions. Briefing was completed on May 8, 2020 and those motions remain pending. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. provides software products and software-enabled services to financial services and healthcare industries in the United States, Canada, rest of the Americas, Europe, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Windsor, Connecticut. STEVEN SCOTT: Hagen Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Minn. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jessica Hagen filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled JESSICA HAGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEVEN SCOTT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 27-CV-19-533, in the Minnesota District Court, Hennepin County, Civil Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a caretaker. Steven Scott Management, Inc., is engaged in the management of residential communities throughout the State of Minnesota. The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Steven Scott Management, Inc., Respondent, Case No. A19-1224, in the Supreme Court of Minnesota.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Jessica Hagen is represented by: Anthony Lavell Brown, Esq. Joshua Reace Williams, Esq. CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC 287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 705-8580 Facsimile: (651) 705-8581 Defendant-Respondent Steven Scott Management, Inc. is represented by: Andrew E. Tanick, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 1800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 336-6871 Facsimile: (612) 339-0061 E-mail: andrew.tanick@ogletree.com SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself from a class lawsuit related to is natural gas and electricity business in New York. The Partnership;s operations are subject to operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering combustible liquids such as propane. The Partnership has been, and will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation as a result of these operating hazards and risks, and as a result of other aspects of its business. In this regard, the Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently a defendant in two putative class action suits in the federal district courts of New York and Pennsylvania. The complaints allege a number of claims under various consumer statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding pricing offered to electricity customers in those states. The complaint in the Pennsylvania action was dismissed in its entirety by the district court, which dismissal is being appealed by the plaintiff. The complaint in the New York action was dismissed in part by the district court, but causes of action based on the New York consumer statute and breach of contract were allowed to proceed. Based on the nature of the allegations under these suits, the Partnership believes that the suits are without merit and is defending each of these suits vigorously. With respect to these pending suits, the Partnership has determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no reserve for a loss contingency is required. The Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from either of these two actions. Suburban said, "Although any litigation is inherently uncertain, based on past experience, the information currently available to the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued insurance liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that currently pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims or known contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flow." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other. Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey. SUNPATH LTD: Baccari Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BACCARI, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNPATH, LTD. and AFFORDABLE AUTOMOTIVE SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11510-DJC (D. Mass., August 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged illegal telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant Affordable Automotive Solutions makes a series of pre-recorded and/or automated telemarketing calls by using a predictive dialer to make repeated calls to Plaintiff and the putative class members' cellular telephone number to originate new warranty customers for the benefit of Defendant Sunpath. Plaintiff contends that he never provided Defendants his prior express written consent to receive such pre-recorded telemarketing calls. Moreover, Plaintiff was injured by Defendants' calls. Affordable Automotive Solutions specializes in protecting customers from high cost automobile repairs and offers a wide range of affordable vehicle service plans to suit every customer’s needs. Sunpath, Ltd. offers extended warranties on automobiles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and – Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW Law Group, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Griffith Suit Asserts Telescope Price-fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Austin Griffith and Timothy McQuaid, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Dar Tson Shen, Celestron Acquisition, LLC, Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co. Ltd., Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd., Olivon Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Olivon USA, LLC, Sky-Watcher Canada, Sky-Watcher USA, Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co. Ltd., SW Technology Corp., Synta Canada International Enterprises Ltd., Pacific Telescope, Corp. and Synta Technology Corp. of Taiwan, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05400 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 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 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, State Antitrust Laws and various state consumer protection laws. Synta Technology Corporation of Taiwan manufactures, markets and/or sells telescopes throughout the U.S. SW Technology Corporation is a wholly owned and/or controlled subsidiary of Synta. SW Technology acquired Celestron as a wholly-owned subsidiary in 2005 and continues to operate as a holding company. Sky-Watcher Canada, a telescope manufacturer, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Synta Technology. Dar Tson Shen is the founder, owner and chairman of Synta. Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd. is a telescope manufacturing company located in Suzhou, China. It is 20% owned by Synta Canada Int'l Enterprises Ltd. Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co. Ltd. is a telescope manufacturing company in Rugao City, Jiangsu, China. Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is a Canadian company that manufactured, marketed, and/or sold telescopes that were sold and purchased throughout the U.S. Olivon USA, LLC is a Nevada corporation that manufactured, marketed, and/or sold telescopes that were sold and purchased throughout the U.S. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. is a Chinese company that manufactured, marketed and/or sold telescopes throughout the U.S. Pacific Telescope Corp. is a British Columbia corporation that sells Synta's Sky-Watcher brand of devices in Canada, and it is controlled by co-conspirator Sylvia Shen, sister of Dar Tson Shen. Defendants are alleged of unlawfully engaging in a conspiracy to monopolize, to allocate the market, and fix prices in the consumer telescope market. Austin Griffith and Timothy McQuaid are amateur astronomers who purchased at least one telescope indirectly from the Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. Lin Y. Chan, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 Email: efastiff@lchb.com lchan@lchb.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 Email: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Ryan Weller, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 Facsimile: (212) 371-5969 Email: rschachter@zsz.com rweller@zsz.com TELETRACKING TECHNOLOGIES: Hall Alleges Wrongful Termination ------------------------------------------------------------ GARY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELETRACKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01204-DSC (W.D. Pa., August 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). According to the complaint, the Defendant illegally terminated the employment of its oldest and/or disabled employees. In March 2019, the Defendant initially implemented its plan by offering a voluntary retirement program (VRP) to its employees who were either over the age of 40 or with disabilities. The VRP recipients were bullied and coerced into accepting the terms and conditions of the program. They were also forced to sign a Confidential Separation Agreement and General Release, which required them to waive, among other things, any claim that they might have under the ADEA. However, the Release Agreement failed to provide the VRP recipients with a complete and accurate list of other employees whose employment was considered for inclusion in the VRP. As a result, TeleTracking's attempted waiver of those employees ADEA claims is void as a matter of law. TeleTracking Technologies, Inc. is a company that provides patient flow automation solutions to the healthcare industry, with corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sol H. Weiss, Esq. Paola Pearson, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 N. 18th St., Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-1130 Facsimile: (215) 875-7701 E-mail: sweiss@anapolweiss.com ppearson@anapolweiss.com - and – Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES U.S. Steel Tower, 10th Floor 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-2101 Facsimile: (412) 391-7032 E-mail: ssugiura@edgarsnyder.com TREEHOUSE FOODS: Mediation in MSPERS Suit Delayed by Pandemic ------------------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that any in-person mediation in the case, Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., has been postponed due to ongoing COVID-19 concerns until at least August 26, 2020. On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and including November 2, 2016. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste. On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste. On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its officers. Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in 2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks contribution from the individual defendants for losses incurred by the company in these litigations. The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi as the lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the Court, which set forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule for the Court's consideration. On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018. On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay proceedings to allow them to explore mediation. The motion was granted on November 19. The parties thereafter engaged in mediation but failed to resolve the dispute. On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9. Under that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class certification brief on May 17, 2019. On February 26, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for class certification. Defendants then filed a petition for permissive appeal of the class certification order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 11, 2020. After ordering lead plaintiff to file a response, the court denied the petition on May 4, 2020. On December 16, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the case schedule 90 days. This agreed motion was granted on December 25, 2019. At a status conference on March 10, 2020, the parties informed the court that they intended to engage in a second mediation and the court extended then-upcoming deadlines under the case schedule, pending a further status report from the parties regarding the extent of the stay needed to facilitate mediation. The court subsequently issued multiple general orders as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, which together postponed all case deadlines for a total of 77 days. On June 9, 2020, the parties filed a joint status report informing the court that mediation had been scheduled for July 9, 2020. The next day, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of mediation. Any in-person mediation was thereafter postponed due to ongoing COVID-19 concerns until at least August 26, 2020. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties. On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to dismiss in February 2018. The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018, respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be subject to the Lavin deferral order. This motion was granted on June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and deferred. There is no set status date in Lavin at this time. Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells on August 13, 2019, and is now deferred. In Wells, the next status conference is scheduled to take place on August 26, 2020. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit against TreeHouse Private Brands, Inc. (formerly Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.), a subsidiary of the company, entitled, Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al. The Company is party to matters challenging its wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at three former Company manufacturing facilities in California. The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the Company of $9.0 million. The preliminary understanding reached with the Negrete plaintiffs involves procedural requirements and Court approval which may continue through 2021. As a result of these developments, the Company recognized a $9.0 million liability as of June 30, 2020. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. UNDER ARMOUR: Suit over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consumer class action lawsuit related to the company's MyFitnessPal application and website. In 2018, an unauthorized third party acquired data associated with the Company's Connected Fitness users' accounts for the Company's MyFitnessPal application and website. The Company has faced consumer class action lawsuits associated with this incident and has received inquiries regarding the incident from certain government regulators and agencies. The Company does not currently consider these matters to be material and believes its insurance coverage will provide coverage should any significant expense arise. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. UPS STORE: Court Amends Certified Question for SJC in Richardson ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Question of the Correct Interpretation in the case captioned KEVIN RICHARDSON II, and All Others Similarly Situated v. THE UPS STORE, INC. and J&V LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 18-cv-12338-ADB (D. Mass.). Kevin Richardson originally filed this suit in the Superior Court of Essex County, claiming that on at least eight occasions between 2012 and 2016 he or his wife paid up to $10.00 for individual notarizations at the Beverly, Massachusetts UPS Store, in excess of the $1.25 notarization fee cap allegedly codified in Chapter 262 Sections 41 or 43. The Defendants moved to dismiss the case and argued that Chapter 262 Section 41's fee cap applied only to specific notarial services that are mentioned in that Section. The Superior Court disagreed with the Defendants and found that the Section's cap "potentially limit[ed] notary public fees for all notary services performed in Massachusetts." After Mr. Richardson served Defendants with a motion for class certification, the Defendants removed the case to federal court. The Defendants then filed a motion to certify the question of the correct interpretation of Chapter 262 Section 41 to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"). On June 24, 2019, the Court certified the following question to the SJC: Does Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 262, Section 41 or 43 proscribe fees in excess of $1.25 for notarization of a document where the notarial act at issue is unrelated to the protest of a bill of exchange, order, draft or check for non-acceptance or non-payment, or of a promissory note for non-payment? The issue was argued before the SJC on April 9, 2020. Thereafter, on May 14, 2020, the SJC requested clarification as to whether this Court wanted the SJC "to consider the plaintiff's second argument, which would require [the SJC] to determine what, if any, impact the executive order (and subsequent legislation) has on the question of whether SectionSection 41 or 43 proscribe fees in excess of $1.25 for notarization of a document. . . ." Upon receipt of this inquiry from the SJC, this Court allowed the parties to file memoranda regarding their views on whether the certified question should be amended to address the issue. In response to this Court's inquiry, Mr. Richardson asked that the certified question be amended to allow the SJC to consider the related question of what effect the executive order and Chapter 222, Sections 16 and 19 have on the question of whether Chapter 262 Section 41 or 43 proscribe notarization fees in excess of $1.25. The Defendants, in their submission, indicated that they do not oppose the certified question being amended to include the issue. Accordingly, the Court provides the following clarification regarding the question certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: Does Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 262, Section 41 or 43 proscribe fees in excess of $1.25 for notarization of a document where the notarial act at issue is unrelated to the protest of a bill of exchange, order, draft or check for non-acceptance or non-payment, or of a promissory note for non-payment and what, if any, impact do Executive Order Nos. 455 (03-13) and 455 (04-04) and the codification of Executive Order No. 455 (04-04) as Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 222 in 2016 have on the question of whether Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 262, SectionSection 41 or 43 proscribe such fees? The Clerk is directed to forward this order to the SJC under the seal of this Court and to provide any portion of the record that the SJC may require, including portions of the record filed under seal. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8u234ls from Leagle.com. VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion seeking dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., is pending. In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R), HETLIOZ(R) and the company's interactions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Vanda said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We do not anticipate that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and we may not prevail. We believe we are entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Vehicle Owners Sue Over Defective Breaks ---------------------------------------------------------- Emily Dack, Kim Hensley-Hauser, Matthew Dorton, Larry Pike, Tony Carrillo, Chris Cates, Roger Doyle, Jacob Miller, Sarah Norris Barlow, Brandon Barlow, Chad Ritterbach, Johnathan Jones, Mark Pulver and Ashley Pulver individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America and Volkswagen, AG, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00615 (W.D. Mo., August 4, 2020), seeks redress for violations of various state consumer protection laws, the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breaches of express and implied warranties and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs are Volkswagen vehicle owners who complained about their vehicles' braking system that suddenly and unexpectedly engages, resulting in sudden and unexpected slowing, sudden stopping and stalling events while the vehicle is being operated. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Tel: (816) 876-2600 Fax: (816) 221-8763 Email: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Phone (541) 359-2827 Fax: (866) 503-8206 Email: bonner@walshpllc.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: 610-421-1326 Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - Adam Gonnelli, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM R. GONNELLI, L.L.C. 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Phone: (917) 541-7110 Fax: (315) 446-7521 Email: adam@arglawoffice.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA RODRIGUEZ and BREANA STEWART, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; 22 and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV24761 (Filed June 29, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 5, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07045 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that Walmart "had a consistent and uniform policy, practice and procedure of willfully failing to pay the earned wages of [its] former employees." The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly associates. Cecelia Rodriguez was employed from March 11, 2014, to October 24, 2019, at the Walmart location in San Jacinto, California. Breana Stewart was employed from September 28, 2019, to December 19, 2019, at the Walmart location in Lancaster, California. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] Defendant Wal-Mart Associates is represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. Zachary Glantz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213 239-9800 Facsimile: 213 239-9045 E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com zachary.glantz@ogletree.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Miranda Negligence Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DALIA MIRANDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA, Case No. 2020-006580-CA-01 (Filed March 19, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 5, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23257-XXXX to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Waste Management for nuisance; negligence; and gross negligence. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that "the Defendant has wrongfully, negligently, and knowingly created a foreseeable harm by causing an unreasonable invasion of the Plaintiff's property by noxious odors, gases and/or particulates" and that "[a]s a foreseeable, direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct and omissions of the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered damages to property," including "harm related to the use and enjoyment of land and property, and decreased property values." Waste Management provides environmental solutions services. The Company offers collection and disposal of refuse systems for municipalities, construction sites, healthcare facilities, and commercial buildings.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jaime A. Bianchi, Esq. Sheldon Philp, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP Southeast Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., No. 4900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371-2700 Facsimile: (305) 358-5744 E-mail: jbianchi@whitecase.com sphilp@whitecase.com - and - Douglas M. Halsey, Esq. DOUGLAS M. HALSEY, P.A. 11325 SW 70th Ave. Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 661-5353 E-mail: Doug@dmhpa.com WELLS FARGO: Sued over Preferential Treatment to Large Clients -------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ANDY ENTERPRISE CORPORATION D/B/A CUON–VIETNAMESE STREET FOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05212 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2020) seeks to rectify the unlawful conduct engaged in by the Defendants in manipulating the taxpayer-funded Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), which is designed to help small businesses, like the Plaintiff, that are in dire economic straits caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct designed to maximize their fees at the expense of the small businesses owners who the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") was intended to help. The Defendants: (1) strung along small business owners before rejecting these applications; (2) prioritized loan applications from larger companies seeking higher loan amounts because processing those applications generated larger loan origination fees for the Defendants. The Defendants' conduct shut out small and minority-owned businesses, the very groups the CARES Act was enacted to protect. The Defendants instead favored big businesses, which in many cases did not even need the money to survive. The Defendants misled applicants in processing their loan applications, and it processed the PPP applications in a way that maximized its commissions with the least amount of work in order to make the most money. Had the Defendants complied with the law, small businesses would have received loan proceeds from their PPP applications. Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. The Company operates through physical stores, the internet, and other distribution channels worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Danitz, Esq. Julia Q. Peng, Esq. Noorjahan Rahman, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com jpeng@cpmlegal.com nrahman@cpmlegal.com WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Caustic Soda Class Suits Proceed to Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westlake Chemical Corporation in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend multiple purported class action suits related to alleged price-fixing of caustic soda. The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers. The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin), Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the U.S. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser lawsuits was denied, so those cases will proceed with discovery. Westlake said, "At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated financial statements either in the current period or in future periods." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and residential and commercial construction. WOLVERINE WORLD: Consolidated Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Wolverine World Wide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Individual lawsuits and three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company that raise a variety of claims, including claims related to property, remediation, and human health effects. The three putative class action lawsuits were subsequently refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan as a single consolidated putative class action lawsuit. 3M Company, which sold Scotchgard containing per-and-poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the Company, has been named as a co-defendant in the individual lawsuits and consolidated putative class action lawsuit. In addition, the current owner of a former landfill and gravel mining operation sued the Company seeking damages and cost recovery for property damage allegedly caused by the Company's disposal of tannery waste containing PFAS (this suit collectively with the individual lawsuits and putative class action, the "Litigation Matters"). Wolverine said, "Assessing potential liability with respect to the Litigation Matters at this time is difficult. The Litigation Matters are in various stages of discovery and related motions. In addition, there is minimal direct and relevant precedent for these types of claims related to PFAS, and the science regarding the human health effects of PFAS exposure in the environment remains inconclusive and inconsistent, thereby creating additional uncertainties. Due to these factors, combined with the complexities and uncertainties of litigation, the Company is unable to conclude that adverse verdicts resulting from the Litigation Matters are probable, and therefore no amounts are currently reserved for these claims. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against these claims." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. manufactures and markets branded footwear and performance leathers. The Company's products include shoes, slippers, occupational and safety footwear, and performance outdoor footwear, among others. The company is based in Rockford, Michigan. ZIMMER BIOMET: Appeals Decision in Karl Suit to Ninth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants James Karl, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled James Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 15, 2020, the Plaintiff moved the Court on June 18, 2020 for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "any person who, during the period commencing four years prior to the date of this lawsuit to the present, was hired or otherwise engaged as an independent contractor for the purposes of solicitation or sales of Zimmer Biomet products and/or services in California by ZIMMER US, INC., BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC"; and 2. appointing his counsel to serve as class counsel. Karl brought this action against the Defendants alleging they misclassified him as an independent contractor. He filed the operative first amended complaint on January 1, 2019. Mr. Karl now seeks to certify a class of California sales representatives under California Labor Code seeking proper itemized statements, unpaid business expenses, restitution for unreimbursed business expenses and unpaid employment benefits. Each claim is predicated on a finding of employment misclassification under California statutory and common law. Zimmer is a publicly traded medical device company. Zimmer was founded in 1927 to produce aluminum splints. The firm is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana, where it is part of the medical devices business cluster. The appellate case is captioned as James Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80119, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JAMES KARL, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, is represented by: Jason Shelton Lohr, Esq. LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP 140 Geary Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 683-7266 E-mail: jason.lohr@lrllp.com Defendants-Petitioners ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware Corporation; BIOMET INC., an Indiana Corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Street, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1013 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $779MM Claim Reserves at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation had US$779 million reserves for asbestos claims, net of recoverables of US$347 million, as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were US$779 million and US$810 million, net of recoverables of US$347 million and US$362 million, as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were US$171 million and US$179 million, net of recoverables of US$38 million and US$40 million, as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/veWb11 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that to date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/GxlR00 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $5.5MM Asbestos Coverage at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Enpro Industries, Inc. had approximately US$5.5 million of insurance coverage for asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "The historical business operations of certain of our subsidiaries resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. In 2010, certain of these subsidiaries, including Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("GST"), filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court"). An additional subsidiary filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court in 2017. The filings were part of a claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay these asbestos claims. "These claims against GST and other subsidiaries were resolved pursuant to a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed with the Bankruptcy Court which was consummated on July 29, 2017. Under the Joint Plan, GST and EnPro Holdings retained their rights to seek reimbursement under insurance policies for any amounts they have paid in the past to resolve asbestos claims, including contributions made to the asbestos claims resolution trust established under the Joint Plan (the "Trust"). These policies include a number of primary and excess general liability insurance policies that were purchased by EnPro Holdings and were in effect prior to January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block"). The policies provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the policy periods and cover losses associated with product liability claims against EnPro Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries. Asbestos claims against GST are not covered under these policies because GST was not a subsidiary of EnPro Holdings prior to 1976. The Joint Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first US$25 million of any settlements and judgments collected for non-GST asbestos claims related to insurance policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and the Trust will share equally in any settlements and judgments EnPro Holdings may collect in excess of US$25 million. To date, EnPro Holdings has collected almost US$22 million in settlements for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and anticipates further collections once the Trust begins making claims payments. "As of June 30, 2020, approximately US$5.5 million of available products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed under primary and excess general liability insurance policies other than the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block (the "Garlock Coverage Block") from solvent carriers with investment grade ratings, which we believe is available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments, including contributions to the Trust. We consider such amount of available insurance coverage under the Garlock Coverage Block to be of high quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. The remaining US$5.5 million is available to pending and estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the remaining available coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that all of the US$5.5 million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due. Assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, we anticipate that at least US$1.2 million will be collected in the second half of 2020. "We also believe that EnPro Holdings will bill, and could collect over time, as much as US$10 million of insurance coverage for non-GST asbestos claims to reimburse it for Trust payments to non-GST Trust claimants. After EnPro Holdings collects the first approximately US$3 million of that coverage, remaining collections for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block will be shared equally with the Trust. "GST has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent carrier collections are included in the US$5.5 million of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability policies that cover EnPro Holdings and certain of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/4trOeS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $92MM Claims Reserves at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation and its subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, recorded US$92 million at June 30, 2020, for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by ComEd and PECO. The estimated liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. "At June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Exelon and Generation had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately US$92 million and US$83 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of June 30, 2020, approximately US$26 million of this amount related to 268 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$66 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/N9WC8G ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 38,800 Claims Pending at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 38,800 pending claims related to asbestos matters as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 153,600 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately US$560 million through June 30, 2020 and US$554 million through December 31, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/7duAZP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $154MM Gross Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted asbestos-related claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$154 million at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$154 million and US$153 million at June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$95 million at both June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We expect that approximately 60% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, US$13 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2019, we had approximately US$555 million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs. We had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements. "With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Recoveries may be limited by insurer insolvencies or financial difficulties. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics or events, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/7duAZP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Had $115.2MM Reserve at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll Rand Inc. had total litigation reserve of US$115.2 million as of June 30, 2020, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. Ingersoll Rand states, "The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" of the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation reserve of US$115.2 million and US$118.1 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$122.4 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/h42X26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Records $803.8MM Liability at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc. recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$803.8 million as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, are joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of their products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries. "We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. As of June 30, 2020, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$803.8 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$405.3 million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$398.5 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/9b9gOJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. As of June 30, 2020, there were approximately 24 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing a complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/9b9gOJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $497MM Liability at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs to be US$497 million as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. "As of June 30, 2020, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position was US$134 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of US$497 million, of which US$50 million was recorded in other current liabilities and US$447 million was recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. "The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of US$363 million, of which US$43 million was recorded in other current assets, and US$320 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included US$13 million of cash and US$281 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. "In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at June 30, 2020 was US$69 million. As of September 30, 2019, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position was US$141 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of US$507 million, of which US$50 million was recorded in other current liabilities and US$457 million was recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. "The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of US$366 million, of which US$46 million was recorded in other current assets, and US$320 million was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included US$16 million of cash and US$273 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2019 was US$77 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/zOz6kU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at June 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ Mallinckrodt plc has approximately 11,800 asbestos-related personal injury cases pending as of June 26, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2020. The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of June 26, 2020, there were approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company. "The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/5PrLlQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 176 Cases at June 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. has 176 pending asbestos cases as of June 28, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020. Minerals Technologies states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. As of June 28, 2020, the Company currently has three pending silica cases and 176 pending asbestos cases. In total, 1,493 silica cases and 83 asbestos cases were dismissed as of the end of the first quarter, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL. Forty-six new asbestos cases were filed in the second quarter of 2020. Five asbestos cases and no silica cases were dismissed during the second quarter of 2020. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the initial public offering. Of the 176 pending asbestos cases as of the end of the second quarter, 136 of the non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or in part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of products that occurred either entirely before the initial public offering, or both before and after the initial public offering. Thirty-three of the thirty-eight remaining non-AMCOL cases as of the end of the second quarter are subject to indemnity in part until dates of exposure, which were not alleged in the complaint, can be ascertained in discovery. In the five remaining non-AMCOL cases, exposure is alleged to have been after the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The remaining two cases involve AMCOL only, so no Pfizer indemnity is available. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/viwGSP ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,705 Exposure Lawsuits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- MSA Safety Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, that its subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,705 cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,655 claims at June 30, 2020. The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. The products at issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently offered by MSA LLC. A reserve has been established with respect to estimated amounts for cumulative trauma product liability claims currently asserted but not yet resolved and incurred but not reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims. Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to inherent uncertainties, including unfavorable trial rulings or developments, an increase in newly filed claims, or more aggressive settlement demands, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur losses in excess of presently recorded liabilities. These losses could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and liquidity." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/CtOiMR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $118.4MM Reserves at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation recorded gross asbestosis and environmental claim reserves of US$118.4 million as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company's net asbestosis and environmental claim reserves amounted to US$77.9 million as of June 30, 2020. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/XKnTUV ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Had $24MM Liabilities at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation recorded US$24 million as of June 30, 2020, for estimated liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "We have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical products have contained components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately US$24 million to US$45 million. Because no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of US$24 million, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$5 million, which is included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/L80w7h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $8.7MM Cleanup Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Regency Centers Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that it had accrued liabilities of US$8.7 million for our pro-rata share of environmental remediation, which includes the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers. The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining primarily to chemicals historically used by certain current and former dry cleaning tenants, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and older underground petroleum storage tanks. We believe that the few tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations. Generally, we endeavor to cause tenants to remove dry cleaning plants from our shopping centers or convert them to more environmentally friendly systems, in accordance with the terms of our leases. We have a blanket environmental insurance policy for third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers that currently have no known environmental contamination. We have also placed environmental insurance, where appropriate, on specific properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk. We monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites. We also have legal obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of doing so. "As of June 30, 2020, we and our Investments in real estate partnerships had accrued liabilities of US$8.7 million for our pro-rata share of environmental remediation. We believe that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. We can give no assurance that existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental contamination; that our estimate of liabilities will not change as more information becomes available; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to us; that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional environmental liability to us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/bJWWTn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 556 Claims Pending at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation had 556 outstanding claims related to asbestos matters as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "For the six months ended June 30, 2020, 69 claims were dismissed and 14 claims were settled. Settlements totaled approximately US$2.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2020. "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/fxD9Na ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Estimates $85.7MM Liability at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation estimates US$85,703,000 liabilities for asbestos-related matters as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company also projected asbestos-related insurance receivables of US$78,316,000 as of June 30, 2020. The Company states, "We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance receivables that are deemed probable. "The liability projection period covers all current and future indemnity and defense costs through 2064, which represents the expected end of our asbestos liability exposure with no further ongoing claims expected beyond that date. This conclusion was based on our history and experience with the claims data, the diminished volatility and consistency of observable claims data, the period of time that has elapsed since we stopped manufacturing products that contained encapsulated asbestos and an expected downward trend in claims due to the average age of our claimants, which is approaching the average life expectancy. "To date, the indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related product liability litigation have been substantially covered by insurance. Although we have exhausted coverage under some of our insurance policies, we believe that we have applicable primary, excess and/or umbrella coverage for claims arising with respect to most of the years during which we manufactured and marketed asbestos-containing products. In addition, we have entered into a cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of claims covered by the carriers. The cost sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the filing date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated, and no carrier had informed us it intended to terminate the agreement. We expect to continue to exhaust individual primary, excess and umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected. We are responsible for uninsured indemnity and defense costs, and we incurred an immaterial amount of expenses for each of the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, related to such costs. "The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/fxD9Na ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $525.0MM Asbestos Liability at June 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- SPX Corporation recorded US$525.0 million for asbestos product liability matters at June 27, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2020. The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries (collectively, "claims"). These claims relate to litigation matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property, and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters (e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation claims). Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring significantly greater loss than we anticipate. While we (and our subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us against potential loss exposures. Also, while we believe we are entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect us against potential loss exposures. "Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$565.0 million (including US$525.0 million for asbestos product liability matters) and US$592.4 million (including US$552.2 million for asbestos product liability matters) at June 27, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Of these amounts, US$491.6 million and US$517.6 million are included in "Other long-term liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 27, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, with the remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record for these claims are based on a number of assumptions, including historical claims and payment experience and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the future period during which additional claims are reasonably foreseeable. While we base our assumptions on facts currently known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties. As a result, our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which could result in charges to earnings. These variances relative to current expectations could have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. "Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment, and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements. During the six months ended June 27, 2020, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries of US$16.3 million, were US$11.8 million. During the six months ended June 29, 2019, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries of US$26.6 million, were US$6.3 million. A significant increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s)) could have a material adverse impact on our share of future payments related to these matters, and, as such, have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/snZ7ae ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 222 PI Lawsuits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. continues to face approximately 222 asbestos-related lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "As of June 30, 2020, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 222 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. "In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Ia1FP4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 8 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at June 30, 2020. The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. "At June 30, 2020, eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Ia1FP4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 816 Active Cases at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation continues to face approximately 816 active asbestos-related cases involving approximately 2,400 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2020, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 816 active cases involving approximately 2,400 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. About 1,540, or approximately 64 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2019, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 800 cases involving approximately 2,390 plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. "Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel. "The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not material to U.S. Steel's financial condition. However, U.S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/vVDns4 ********* 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 ***