/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200827.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 172
Headlines
ACUSTOM APPAREL: Martinez Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HONDA: N.D. Cal. Narrows Claims in Woo Liability Suit
AMERIGROUP FINANCIAL: Faces Weisberg Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Plan Check Suit Removed to C.D. California
ANGEL BRINKS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
AURORA HEALTH: Woznicki Sues Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BAYER AG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 14 Deadline
BLUE NOVA: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Class Suit in N.D. California
CARVEN V. PORRECA: Thomas Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Special Sues Over Drop in Stock Market Value
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Fails to Cover COVID Losses, Valley Lo Says
CONOPCO INC: Schulte Appeals E.D. Missouri Ruling to 8th Circuit
CONTINENTAL CENTRAL: Breuer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CONTINENTAL WESTERN: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Dill Says
CONWAY REGIONAL: Marshall Class Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Lopez Appeals Orders in ADA Suit to 2nd Cir.
DIETZ & WATSON: Watson Sues Over False Marketing of Smoked Gouda
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
EMERALD HOLDING: Order of Dismissal Entered in Steamfitters Suit
ERIE INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Johnson Claims
EXXON MOBIL: Fed. Court Remands Massachusetts Suit to State Court
FCA US LLC: Cummings Suit Moved From N.D.N.Y. to E.D. Michigan
FERRO PLUMBING: Smith Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
FRANCHISE GROUP: Appeal in Liberty Tax Securities Suit Underway
FRANCHISE GROUP: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
FRANCHISE GROUP: Dec. 18 Class Certification Hearing in "Labrado"
GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program Shelved
GEO GROUP: Facing Hartel Class Action in Florida
GEO GROUP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 7 Deadline
GERON CORP: Court Approves Selection of Lead Counsel & Plaintiff
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Drugs Price-Fixing Suit Ongoing
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Ongoing
GOLDENWEST DIAMOND: Crosson Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Ruzhinskaya Appeals Ruling in Spiro Suit
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by SISC for Monopolizing Sale of Xyrem
JEWELRY BOUTIQUE: Conner Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
KABBAGE INC: Ratliff CPA Files Class Suit in D. South Carolina
KENTUCKY: Court Refuses to Dismiss J.B-K. Suit Over FCM Payments
KEYCORP: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 31 Deadline
KKW BEAUTY: Bunting Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Continues to Defend Julian Class Suit
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Settlement Amount in Sheer Already Paid
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Turner Sues Over Wrongful Withholding of Benefits
LITTLE CAESAR: Murphy Appeals Rulings in ADA Suit to Second Cir.
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Ross Appeals D.D.C. Decision to D.C. Circuit
MDL 2724: Class Suits v. Perrigo Over Clobetasol Drug Ongoing
MDO2 FITNESS: Fails to Properly Compensate Wages, McKee Suit Says
MEDPACE INC: Faces Saleba ADEA Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
MEI PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 9 Deadline
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Duncan in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Fabian in Gulino Bias Suit
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Action Pending
PAPA JOHN'S: Durling Class Action Ongoing
PBF HOLDING: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 2021
PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits
RED LOBSTER: Matzura Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
RIGHTECH INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Trogdon FLSA Suit Says
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL: Salerno Medical Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Calif. Suit Wins Preliminary OK
SURESOURCE LLC: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
SYLVANE INC: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TESLA INC: Skiles Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
TICKETLEAP INC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
TOPPS COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TRADER JOE'S: Rosenfeld Sues Over False Marketing of Crackers
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Gosse Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
TRI-STAR PRODUCTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA: Shen Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
UNITED STATES: Warfield Sues Over Denial of CARES Emergency Cash
VANCUREN SERVICES: Woodward Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VENTURE EXPRESS: Ward Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VINEYARD VINES: Calcano Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
WIRECARD AG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
YGRENE ENERGY: N.D. Cal. Denies Woolley's Bid to Certify Classes
YUEXPLORE LCC: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
ZORLU MANUFACTURING: Web Site Unusable to Blinds, Calcano Claims
*********
ACUSTOM APPAREL: Martinez Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acustom Apparel, Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Acustom
Apparel, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03694 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Acustom Apparel is a Menswear brand using 3D Technology to craft
custom clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
AMERICAN HONDA: N.D. Cal. Narrows Claims in Woo Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District California issued
an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint in the case
captioned TONY WOO, et al. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case
No. 19-cv-07042-MMC (N.D. Cal.).
In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
the Plaintiffs state that Plaintiff Daniel Rifkin purchased a new
Honda CR-V EX vehicle in 2017 in Denver, Colorado, that Plaintiff
Douglas P. Schwert purchased a new 2018 Honda CR-V Touring vehicle
in 2017 in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and that Plaintiff Tony Woo
purchased a new 2018 Honda CR-V EX vehicle in 2019 Chico,
California.
The Plaintiffs allege that each of the Plaintiff's vehicle has a
"Display Screen" allowing him to "access and operate [the]
[v]ehicle's safety, information, communication, and entertainment
features[,] such as smartphone integration, hands-free calling,
navigation (if equipped), Bluetooth audio streaming, radio and
music controls, rear-view camera and vehicle settings." According
to the Plaintiffs, their respective Display Screens are "defective"
in that they "dim and go dark, freeze, or shine at full brightness,
causing driver distraction and rendering the [vehicles']
information center inoperable." The Plaintiffs allege such
"malfunctions" occur "regularly and unexpectedly."
Based on their allegations, the Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and
on behalf of a putative class, assert nine Causes of Action, each
based on one or more of the following three theories: (1) Honda, by
not repairing the alleged defect, breached the express terms of its
"New Vehicle Limited Warranty," which warranty, plaintiffs assert,
requires Honda to "repair original components found to be defective
in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance"; (2)
Honda breached the implied warranty of merchantability, as the
alleged defect makes drivers "less safe by detracting their
attention and poses enough of a safety risk that [the] [v]ehicles
cannot be said to provide safe and reliable transportation"; and
(3) Honda engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices by
selling vehicles to plaintiffs "with knowledge that [the vehicles]
contained defects with their Display Screen and knowingly concealed
said defects from [p]laintiffs."
In its Motion, Honda seeks dismissal of each claim, and, to the
extent any such claim is not dismissed, an order finding the
Plaintiffs may not proceed on behalf of a nationwide class.
In the First Cause of Action, the Plaintiffs allege that Honda, by
failing "to comply with the written and implied warranties"
applicable to their vehicles, violated the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act ("MMWA"). By the instant Motion, Honda, in addition to arguing
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach of either
express or implied warranty, asserts the Court lacks jurisdiction
to consider the MMWA claim to the extent it is brought on behalf of
the putative class.
Here, as the number of named Plaintiffs is three, and as neither
the initial complaint nor the FAC includes facts to support a
finding that the amount placed in controversy by the three named
Plaintiffs is $50,000 more, the Court finds it lacks federal
question jurisdiction over the MMWA claim. Indeed, the Plaintiffs
neither alleged in the FAC, nor do they argue in their opposition,
that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the MMWA
claim; rather, the Plaintiffs, citing five district court cases,
contend the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney states that the Court is not
persuaded by the authority on which the Plaintiffs rely.
Accordingly, to the extent Honda argues the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the MMWA claim, the motion will be denied.
Judge Chesney also opines, among other things, that to the extent
the MMWA claim is based on a theory that Honda has breached the
terms of its express warranties, the claim is subject to
dismissal.
Accordingly, Honda's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as follows:
1. The First Cause of Action is DISMISSED, except to the
extent it is based on a theory of breach of implied
warranty as asserted on behalf of Woo and Rifkin;
2. The Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Causes of Action are
DISMISSED;
3. The Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action are DISMISSED, except
to the extent they are asserted on behalf of Woo;
4. The Sixth Cause of Action is DISMISSED, except to the
extent it is based on the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action
as asserted on behalf of Woo; and
5. The Eighth Cause of Action is not subject to dismissal.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y95ermg3 from Leagle.com.
AMERIGROUP FINANCIAL: Faces Weisberg Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERIGROUP FINANCIAL, LLC; DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-07413 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2020), is
brought to seek damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system," to
place its text message to the Plaintiff seeking to sell or solicit
its business services, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff is
not a customer of the Defendant's services and has never provided
any personal information, including his cellular telephone number,
to the Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, the
Defendant never received the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls or text messages using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County of
the state of California.
AMERIGROUP FINANCIAL, LLC, is an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Plan Check Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PLAN CHECK DOWNTOWN III, LLC,
a California limited liability company and others similarly
situated v. AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania company, and
DOES 1 through 20, Case No. 20STCV23053 (Filed June 16, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 31, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06954-GW-SK to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff, a restauranteur, seeks Business Income insurance
coverage under a policy AmGUARD allegedly issued to it. The
Plaintiff asserts four causes of action in its complaint against
AmGUARD. These causes of action are declaratory judgment; breach of
contract; bad faith breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and unfair business practices.
Amguard is an insurance firm. The Company offers property and
casualty insurance services.[BN]
The Defendant Amguard is represented by:
Chet A. Kronenberg, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 407-7500
Facsimile: (310) 407-7502
E-mail: ckronenberg@stblaw.com
ANGEL BRINKS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angel Brinks Fashion,
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Angel Brinks Fashion,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03706 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Angel Brinks Fashion features sexy leggings, bodysuits, dresses,
lingerie, rompers, denim and jackets for edgy fashionista.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
AURORA HEALTH: Woznicki Sues Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Woznicki, individually, and as representative of a Class
of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Aurora Health Care, Inc.
Incentive Savings Plan v. AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., and THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01246-PP (E.D. Wis., Aug. 14, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Aurora, Inc. Retirement and
403(b) Savings Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
the Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Defendant breached the duties they owed to the Plan by, among
other things: (1) authorizing the Plan to pay unreasonably high
fees for recordkeeping and administration (RK&A); (2) failing to
objectively, reasonably, and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (3) unreasonably
maintaining investment advisors and consultants for the Plan
despite the known availability of similar service providers with
lower costs and/or better performance histories.
These unreasonable RK&A fees, investment selections, and service
provider selections cannot be justified, according to the
complaint. The Defendants' failure to monitor and improve the
recordkeeper, investment options, and investment advisors and
consultants confirms more than simply sloppy business practice. The
Defendants' failures breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the
Plaintiff, Plan Participants, and beneficiaries. Prudent
fiduciaries of 403(b) plans continuously monitor fees against
applicable benchmarks and peer groups to identify unreasonable and
unjustifiable fees. The Defendants did not engage in a prudent
decision-making process and/or engaged in self-dealing, as there is
no other explanation for why the Plan paid these unreasonable fees
for RK&A, investment management, and investment advisory and
consultant services.
The Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan.
To remedy, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the Plan
to enforce the Defendants' liability to make good to the Plan all
losses resulting from their breaches of fiduciary duty.
The Defendants are ERISA fiduciaries as they exercise discretionary
authority or discretionary control over the 403(b) defined
contribution pension plannown as the Aurora, Inc. Retirement and
403(b) Savings Plan ("The Plan")--that it sponsors and provides to
its employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
BAYER AG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
WRCDF Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
BAYRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
VEL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Wirecard AG (OTCMKT:WRCDF)
WRCDF Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 17, 2015
- June 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wirecard
AG made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during
the Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a
trust account that was missing; (2) Wirecard overstated its
financial results during the Class Period, including revenue and
EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or
countermeasures; (4) the Company's external auditor failed to audit
Wirecard in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTCMKT:BAYRY)
Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, 1) following its acquisition of
Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of
dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits
brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its
glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2)
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
BLUE NOVA: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Class Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Nova Marketing
LLC. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Nova
Marketing LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-05700 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Blue Nova Marketing LLC is a marketing company with a focus on
providing local businesses with a world wide web presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
CARVEN V. PORRECA: Thomas Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carmen V. Porreca,
P.C., et al. The case is styled as Alva Thomas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carmen V. Porreca, P.C.,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-02606-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Aug.
14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Carmen V. Porreca is a law firm in Marietta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Special Sues Over Drop in Stock Market Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., and Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P.,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS, INC., RICHARD L. EBERLY, GAIL S. PAGE, ROBERT
W. BAIRD & CO. INC., and DOUGHERTY & COMPANY LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03753 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of
all persons, who purchased Chembio common stock directly in or
traceable to the Company's May 7, 2020 offering pursuant to
Chembio's Form S-3 Registration Statement and its Prospectus and
Prospectus Supplement, dated May 7, 2020, asserting claims only for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933
The lawsuit is also brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased
or otherwise acquired Chembio securities on the open market between
April 1, 2020, and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Section 10(b)
Class Period"). This class of investors asserts claims only for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Section 10(b) Class"). The Plaintiffs
assert that they have been damaged as a result of the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock.
The Company claims its patented Dual Path Platform ("DPP")
technology platform, which uses a small drop of blood from the
fingertip, provides high-quality, cost-effective results in
approximately 15 minutes for COVID-19. Furthermore, the Company
asserts that its products "meet the highest standards for accuracy
and superior performance to help prevent the spread of infectious
diseases" and that its "innovative solutions, like the Chembio Dual
Path Platform (DPP), make POC testing faster, more accurate, and
more cost effective."
The Company represented that its DPP COVID-19 serological POC test
for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies aided in determining
current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that its test
provides high sensitivity and specificity, and was 100% accurate.
Test sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify
those with the disease (true positive rate), whereas test
specificity is the ability of the test to correctly identify those
without the disease (true negative rate).
Based on these representations, the Company's stock increased from
a closing price on March 31, 2020, the day before the Section 10(b)
Class Period begins, of $5.12 per share, to a Class Period high of
$15.54 per share on April 24, 2020.
The Defendants took advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price,
according to the complaint. On May 11, 2020, the Company reported
that it closed the May Offering of approximately 2.6 million shares
of Chembio stock at $11.75 per share for gross proceeds of
approximately $30.8 million. In the Registration Statement for that
May Offering, Chembio again represented that its DPP COVID-19
serological POC test for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies
aided in determining current or past exposure to the COVID-19
virus, that its test provides high sensitivity and specificity, and
was 100% accurate.
Then, on June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a press release disclosing that
it had revoked the Company's Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")
for the Company's DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System. As a result of
disclosure of the FDA letter, Chembio shares declined from a
closing price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89
per share on June 17, 2020, a decline of $6.04 per share, or over
60%, on heavier than usual volume of over 25 million shares.
As a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements of
fact and omissions of material facts, other wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock, Plaintiffs and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Chembio common stock (i) in the May 2020
Offering and (ii) during the Section 10(b) Class Period.
Chembio purports to be a leading point-of-care ("POC") diagnostics
company focused on detecting and diagnosing infectious
diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
Marc B. Kramer, Esq.
Steven M. Hecht, Esq.
Brandon Fierro, Esq.
Jennifer A. Randolph, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 262-6700
Fax: (212) 262-7402
Email: lrolnick@lowenstein.com
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Fails to Cover COVID Losses, Valley Lo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Lo Club Association, Inc. d/b/a Valley Lo Club, and all
others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04790 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2020), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged failure to provide insurance coverage for the
business income the Plaintiff lost because of the ongoing
Coronavirus pandemic.
In 2018, Cincinnati Insurance sold the Plaintiff a commercial
property and casualty insurance policy (Policy Number ETD 048 27
80) with an effective date of coverage of April 1, 2018. The
Plaintiff says it has performed all of its obligations under Policy
Number ETD 048 27 80, including the payment of premiums and the
timely reporting of claims. Therefore, Policy Number ETD 048 27 80
has been in effect since April 1, 2018. Pursuant to the Building
and Personal Property Coverage Form--an "all-risk" property
insurance policy Cincinnati Insurance agreed to "pay for direct
'loss' to Covered Property at the 'premises' caused by or resulting
from any Covered Cause of Loss."
On March 15, 2020, the Plaintiff was notified that an individual,
who tested positive for COVID-19 dined at the Valley Lo Club on
March 5, 6 and 7, 2020. The Individual also used a golf simulator
in the Valley Lo Club's pro shop on March 7. Further investigation
revealed that members of the Individual's immediate family utilized
the Club's facilities (including the paddle tennis courts,
conference room, pool and locker room) on March 3, 9, 12 and 14,
2020. The Plaintiff immediately ceased Valley Lo Club's operations
after learning of the Individual's COVID-19 diagnosis and Club
visits. On March 16, 2020, a Valley Lo Club employee, who was
working in the pro shop on March 7, 2020, began experiencing
COVID-19 symptoms.
In response to Executive Order 2020-07 and the COVID-19 exposure
that occurred at the Valley Lo Club, the Plaintiff closed the club
(including its restaurants/on premises dining areas) to the public
on March 16, 2020. The Plaintiff began suffering an ongoing loss of
business income upon the Valley Lo Club's March 16, 2020 closure.
On April 8, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim with Cincinnati
Insurance related to its lost business income.
On May 27, 2020, Cincinnati Insurance denied coverage for the lost
income the Plaintiff suffered because of Executive Orders 2020-07
and 2020-10 (and any subsequent Executive Orders extending their
prohibition of on-premises dining and/or closure of places of
public amusement) and the COVID-19 exposure that occurred at the
Valley Lo Club, says the complaint
The Plaintiff owned and operated Valley Lo Club, a country club
located in Glenview, Illinois.
Cincinnati Insurance is a stock insurance company organized under
the laws of the State of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
James H. Podolny, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 202-3283
Fax: (312) 202-3284
Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
jp@duncanlawgroup.com
- and -
Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq.
Michael Kozlowski, Esq.
ESBROOK LAW, LLC
77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 319-7680
Email: christopher.esbrook@ebsrooklaw.com
michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com
CONOPCO INC: Schulte Appeals E.D. Missouri Ruling to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Karen Schulte filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled Karen Schulte v. Conopco, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02546-RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the 23rd Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis) on Sept. 12, 2019. The Eastern District of Missouri Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02547 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges gender-discriminatory pricing scheme in
relation to the collection of a so-called "Pink Tax," the price
difference for female-specific products or service compared to
those offered to men.
Schulte filed two lawsuits over Pink Tax in state court. Both
lawsuits have been removed to the Federal District Court.
The appellate case is captioned as Karen Schulte v. Conopco, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 20-2696, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on September 22, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellant Karen Schulte is due on September 22,
2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Karen Schulte, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP
Suite 1, 75 W. Lockwood
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 550-3717
E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
Defendants-Appellees Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever, CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., Walmart, Inc., Target Corporation. Schnuck Markets,
Inc., and Dierbergs Markets, Inc. are represented by:
James Patrick Muehlberger, Esq.
SHOOK & HARDY
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com
- and -
LaDawn L. Burnett, Esq.
Darci Faulkner Madden, Esq.
Ann Elizabeth Sternhell Blackwell, Esq.
BRYAN & CAVE
3600 One Metropolitan Square, 211 N. Broadway
Saint Louis, MO 63102-2186
Telephone: (314) 259-2000
E-mail: ladawn.burnett@bclplaw.com
dfmadden@bclplaw.com
liz.blackwell@bclplaw.com
- and -
Troy Bozarth, Esq.
HEPLER & BROOM
Suite 2700, 211 N. Broadway
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-6160
E-mail: tbozarth@heplerbroom.com
CONTINENTAL CENTRAL: Breuer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Central
Credit, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yakov Breuer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Continental Central Credit, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-06475 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Continental Central Credit Inc. is a financial services company
based out of Carlsbad, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CONTINENTAL WESTERN: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Dill Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW DILL, DMD, AMY VARBLE, DMD, AND MICHAEL WONG, DMD, P.C., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL
WESTERN GROUP, LLC, TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA and
W.R. BERKLEY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-01015-RWS (E.D. Mo.,
July 31, 2020), arises from the Defendant's refusal to cover the
Plaintiff's losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the proposed
classes and subclasses of dental practices that (a) purchased
standard commercial property insurance policies from the Defendants
that provide for business income loss and extra expense coverage
and do not exclude coverage for pandemics and (b) have suffered
business income and extra expense losses.
This action also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants
are contractually obligated to pay these losses. In addition, the
Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
relief that this Court deems equitable and just, arising out of the
Defendants' breach of contract and wrongful conduct.
According to the complaint, the Defendants, without justification,
have refused performance under the Plaintiff's Policies and other
Class members' policies by denying coverage for these losses and
such denials were vexatious and without reason. Accordingly, the
Defendants are in breach of the Policies and other Class members'
policies.
The Plaintiff contends that because of the pandemic, it shut down
from March 17, 2020, and Dr. Appelbaum retired. The Plaintiff
re-opened with a partial day on May 1. Then during the entire month
of May it operated on a limited schedule because of the need for
social distancing. The Plaintiff's practice is still not back to
normal as a result of the pandemic.
The Plaintiff is a dental practice offering pediatric dental
services in the St. Louis area.
CWG is an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: 314 241-5799
Facsimile: 314 241-5788
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
- and -
Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: 314 735-8100
Facsimile: 314 898-3078
E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
aj@bruninglegal.com
ryan@bruninglegal.com
- and -
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
E-mail: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com
CONWAY REGIONAL: Marshall Class Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Danielle Marshall, On Behalf of Herself and all
Others Similarly Situated v. Conway Regional Medical Center Inc.,
doing business as: Conway Regional Health System, Case No.
23CV-20-00771, was removed from the Arkansas Circuit Court,
Faulkner County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on Aug. 14, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00933-JM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Conway Regional Medical Center, Inc., provides healthcare services.
The Company offers cancer care, cardiology, orthopedics, heart
care, pediatrics, radiology and imaging, home care, surgery,
physical therapy, wound care, pain management, and rehabilitation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
LINVILLE JOHNSON PLLC
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 777-7777
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch , IV, Esq.
Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William A. Waddell , Jr., Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREGDE & CLARK, LLP
Regions Center, Suite 2000
400 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
Phone: (501) 370-1510
Email: waddell@fridayfirm.com
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Lopez Appeals Orders in ADA Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victor Lopez filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2020, Order dated July 6, 2020,
and Judgment dated July 6, 2020, issued on his lawsuit entitled
Lopez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-9888, 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 Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Darden Restaurants, Inc., is an American multi-brand restaurant
operator headquartered in Orlando.
The appellate case is captioned as Lopez v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., Case No. 20-2563, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Victor Lopez, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Oliver Koppell, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
99 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 867-3838
E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Darden Restaurants, Inc., doing business as
Longhorn Steakhouse, is represented by:
Erin Sales, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 South Orange Avenue, SunTrust Center
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (860) 305-7128
E-mail: esales@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Amanda L. Van Hoose Garofalo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 589-4610
E-mail: agarofalo@bakerlaw.com
DIETZ & WATSON: Watson Sues Over False Marketing of Smoked Gouda
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kisha Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06550 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 17, 2020), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards
to its wedges of Gouda cheese purporting to have been smoked under
its Dietz & Watson brand.
The relevant front label representations include "Dietz & Watson,"
"Artisan Cheeses" and "Smoked Gouda." The representations are
misleading because the Product gets its smoke flavor not from being
smoked but through the addition of smoke flavor, according to the
complaint. No reasonable consumer would be instinctively
distrustful or skeptical of a product labeled "Smoked Gouda" such
that they would be inclined to verify whether the ingredient list
disclosed a "smoke flavor."
"Smoked Gouda" that gets its smoked flavor from being smoked is not
an unheard of or rare delicacy that it would make a reasonable
consumer "double check" the veracity of the prominent front label
claims. However, the Product's smoked taste is provided by "Natural
Smoke Flavoring" instead of from being smoked, indicated in the
small print on the ingredient list, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers.
The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed
was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant,
the Plaintiff contends. Had she and class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
them. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product
is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $3.79 for
wedges of 7.6 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.
Dietz & Watson, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells wedges of Gouda cheese purporting to have been smoked
under its Dietz & Watson brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in a purported class action complaint in the
Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains pending.
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center").
The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.
At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet
minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center.
The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.
The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.
EMERALD HOLDING: Order of Dismissal Entered in Steamfitters Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Holding, 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 putative class
action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis
et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS, has been voluntarily dismissed and
the court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice dismissing
the lawsuit.
On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company
and its directors under the caption Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS.
The complaint alleged that the disclosures made in Emerald's Form
S-3 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on June 19, 2020 regarding the contemplated rights
offering described therein omitted certain material information.
The action was seeking, among other forms of relief, an injunction
against the rights offering. The plaintiff also filed a motion for
expedited proceedings.
On July 2, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice, voluntarily
dismissing the action as moot and on July 17, 2020, the court
entered an order of dismissal with prejudice dismissing the
lawsuit.
Emerald Holding, Inc. organizes business to business trade shows.
The Company operates live events, as well as offers other marketing
services, including digital media and print publications. Emerald
Expositions Events serves sports, technology, jewelry,
construction, and other sectors in the United States. The company
is based in San Juan Capistrano, California.
ERIE INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Johnson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON JOHNSON d/b/a/ THE CULTURALS ELITE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
(Pa. Com. Pleas, July 31, 2020), alleges breach of contract arising
from the Plaintiff's contracts of insurance with the Defendant for
its refusal to cover for COVID-19 losses.
At the direction of local, state, and/or federal authorities, the
Plaintiff was forced to temporarily close his salon business
beginning on March 15, 2020, causing an interruption to and loss of
Plaintiff's business income. The Plaintiff's business remains
limited to serving customers at a 50% capacity, pursuant to ongoing
government-ordered restrictions, as the number of COVID-19 cases
continues to rise.
The Plaintiff contends that he submitted timely notice of his claim
to the Defendant, but the Defendant has refused to provide the
purchased coverage to its insured, and has denied him claims for
benefits under the policy. The Defendant has similarly refused to,
or will refuse to, honor its obligations under the "all-risk"
policy(ies) purchased by him and the other members of the putative
Class of insureds.
The Plaintiff and the Class purchased and paid for "all-risk"
Commercial Property Coverage insurance policies from the Defendant,
which provide broad property insurance coverage for all
non-excluded, lost business income, including the losses.
Erie Insurance offers personal auto, property, and life insurance
through Erie Family Life Insurance, the publicly-traded Erie
Indemnity, and other operating subsidiaries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412 322-9243
Facsimile: 412 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
EXXON MOBIL: Fed. Court Remands Massachusetts Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District Massachusetts issued
Memorandum of Decision granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in
the case captioned as COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, Case No. 19-12430-WGY (D. Mass.).
District Judge William G. Young states that the well-pleaded
complaint rule governs this case and deprives this Court of
jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's thoroughly state law claims.
In the absence of any applicable statutory or doctrinal exception
to this rule, the Court ALLOWED the motion to remand the case back
to state court, Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County.
The case has a complex pre-history dating back to April 19, 2016,
when Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued a Civil
Investigative Demand ("CID") to Exxon Mobil Corporation
("ExxonMobil") for potentially defrauding ExxonMobil's consumers
and investors, requesting ExxonMobil's internal documents since
1976 relating to carbon dioxide emissions. This investigation was
presaged with fanfare by the "AG's United for Clean Power Press
Conference" held on March 29, 2016, in which the Attorney General
(joined by several counterparts from other states and former Vice
President Al Gore) announced a band of twenty attorneys
general--dubbed "the Green 20"--and noted "the troubling disconnect
between what Exxon knew [about climate change] . . . and what the
company and industry chose to share with investors and with the
American public."
In this case, the Attorney General filed her 205-page complaint in
Massachusetts Superior Court on October 24, 2019. ExxonMobil
removed the case to this Court on November 29, 2019, and the
Commonwealth filed a motion to remand on December 26, 2019.
After a hearing on March 17, 2020, conducted telephonically due to
the coronavirus pandemic, the Court ALLOWED the motion to remand
and the case was remanded to Suffolk County Superior Court.
In disclaiming federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court does
not quarrel with Judge William Haskell Alsup's sensible and
eloquent plea that "[i]f ever a problem cried out for a uniform and
comprehensive solution, it is the geophysical problem" of climate
change. California, 2018 WL 1064293, at *3. Rather, the Court
concludes that the "problem" at issue in this complaint is not
geophysical but economic--namely, has ExxonMobil been sufficiently
candid with its investors and customers in Massachusetts about the
simmering calamity of global warming? That question is properly for
the courts of the Commonwealth to decide, Judge Young opines.
Judge Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the motion to remand of Oakland and San Francisco
in California v. BP P.L.C., Nos. C 17-06011 WHA, C 17-06012 WHA,
2018 WL 1064293, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018), and City of
Oakland v. BP PLC, No. 18-16663, 2020 WL 2702680 (9th Cir. May 26,
2020). Judge Alsup reasoned that removal was proper because the
cities' "nuisance claims--which address the national and
international geophysical phenomenon of global warming--are
necessarily governed by federal common law."
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7x2hvhm from Leagle.com.
FCA US LLC: Cummings Suit Moved From N.D.N.Y. to E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lisa Cummings, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01072,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on Aug. 14, 2020.
The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-12192-GCS-EAS to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
FCA US LLC is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3290
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza, 26th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Fax: (314) 552-7000
Email: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
tazar@thompsoncoburn.com
FERRO PLUMBING: Smith Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Smith, behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
FERRO PLUMBING & HEATING INC., FERRO PLUMBING & MECHANICAL INC.,
YONKERS FINEST REPAIRS, INC., MICHAEL FERRO SR. and MICHAEL FERRO
JR., Case No. 7:20-cv-06485 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants:
unpaid overtime, unpaid prevailing wages, statutory wage notice
violations, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff would work 68 to 69 total
hours per week. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with
a proper wage statement with each payment received. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their businesses with a policy of
not paying the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New
York State overtime rate (of time and one-half) to the Plaintiff.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their businesses
with a policy of not providing proper wage notices pursuant to the
NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed as a carpenter, mechanic and plumber's
helper.
Ferro Plumbing & Heating Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 825-1400
Email: rob@akinlaws.com
FRANCHISE GROUP: Appeal in Liberty Tax Securities Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, 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 27, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, In Re Liberty Tax, Inc. Securities
Litigation, is ongoing.
This case consolidated two previously filed cases on July 12, 2018.
The case, among other things, asserts that the Company's Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings over a multi-year period
failed to disclose the alleged misconduct of the individual
defendants and that disclosure of the alleged misconduct caused the
Company's stock price to drop and, thereby harm the purported class
of stockholders.
The class period is alleged to be October 1, 2013 through February
23, 2018. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on September 17, 2018
which was granted on January 17, 2020. T
he Plaintiff filed their notice to appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on February 19, 2020. The
Second Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal.
Appellant's brief was filed on May 5, 2020 and Appellant's
opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2020.
Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
FRANCHISE GROUP: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action and derivative suit initiated by Asbestos
Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund.
On August 12, 2019, Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
derivatively on behalf of the Company filed a class action and
derivative complaint (the "Derivative Complaint") in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, against Matthew Avril, Patrick
A. Cozza, Thomas Herskovits, Brian R. Kahn, Andrew M. Laurence,
Lawrence Miller, G. William Minner Jr., Bryant R. Riley, Kenneth M.
Young, (collectively the "Derivative Complaint Individual
Defendants"), and against Vintage, B. Riley Financial, Inc. ("B.
Riley"), and the Company as a Nominal Defendant.
The Derivative Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty against
the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants based on the
following allegations: (a) causing the Company to completely
transform its business model and to acquire Buddy's at an inflated
price, (b) transfer the control of the Company to Vintage and B.
Riley for no premium and without a stockholder vote, (c) allowing
Vintage and B. Riley's other former stockholders to unfairly
extract additional value from the Company by virtue of a Tax
Receivable Agreement (TRA), (d) the offering to the Company's
non-Vintage and non-B. Riley stockholders of an inadequate price
for their shares of Company stock ($12.00 per share), (e)
disseminating materially misleading and/or omissive Tender Offer
documents, and (f) issuing additional Company shares to Vintage at
less than fair value to fund the Tender Offer and Vitamin Shoppe
Acquisition. The Derivative Complaint also includes a count of
unjust enrichment against Vintage and B. Riley.
The Derivative Complaint seeks: (a) declaration that the action is
properly maintainable as a class action; (b) a finding the
Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary
duties owed to the class and the Company; (c) a finding that demand
on the Company's Board is excused as futile; (d) enjoining the
consummation of the Tender Offer unless and until all material
information necessary for the Company's stockholders to make a
fully informed tender decision has been disclosed; (e) a finding
Vintage and B. Riley are liable for unjust enrichment; (f) an award
to Plaintiff and the other members of the class damages in an
amount which may be proven at trial; (g) an award to Plaintiff and
the other members of the class pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs; (h) an award to the Company in the amount of
damages it sustained as a result of Individual Defendants’
breaches of fiduciary duties to the Company; and (i) awarding such
other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Simultaneously with the filing of the Derivative Complaint, the
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking expedited proceedings. The motion
was withdrawn as the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants
agreed to produce certain documents.
On October 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended
Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"), following the Company's filing of the amended and
restated offer to purchase on October 16, 2019 (the “Offer to
Purchase”).
The Amended Complaint contained substantially similar allegations
but revised certain allegations based on disclosures contained in,
or purportedly omitted, from the Offer to Purchase. The Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 25, 2019,
seeking to prevent the consummation of the pending Offer to
Purchase unless additional information was disclosed.
On November 5, 2019, the Company filed Amendment No. 5 to the Offer
to Purchase making certain additional disclosures, and Plaintiff
withdrew its Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On February 7, 2020, Matthew Sciabacucchi, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a motion to intervene to pursue some or all
of the derivative claims pending in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. Sciabacucchi's motion states that Asbestos Workers'
Philadelphia Pension Fund has sold its shares in the Company. The
motion to intervene was granted March 10, 2020.
On June 8, 2020 the Court entered an order governing briefing on
Plaintiff's petition for an interim award of attorney's fees.
Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on June 8, 2020. Defendant's
opposition was filed on July 23, 2020, and Plaintiff's reply is due
on or before August 6, 2020.
Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
FRANCHISE GROUP: Dec. 18 Class Certification Hearing in "Labrado"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, 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 27, 2020, that the Court in Rene
Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc., set a hearing on the class certification
for December 18, 2020.
On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for
herself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code,
including: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
keep pay records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of
California Business and Profession Code Section 17200.
The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages, injunctive relief and other damages.
The Company highly disputes the allegations set forth in the
Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss.
On May 29, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
but granted the Company leave to file a motion to strike. The
Company filed a motion to strike and on August 20, 2019, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion. The Court
provided the Company with twenty days to file its answer to the
Complaint and lifted the discovery stay.
A status conference was held on March 3, 2020 where the Court set a
hearing on the class certification for December 18, 2020. A further
status conference was held on August 3, 2020 and the Court set a
continuance for August 13, 2020.
Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program Shelved
----------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the trial court overseeing two Washington cases
has alerted the Company that litigation will remain on standby due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Court").
The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that
the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment
the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even
though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and
standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case
are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved
by the United States Congress.
On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims.
The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.
In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed, two in Washington and one in
California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on
September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State
Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on
December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in
the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California.
All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state's
minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the
Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the
TVPA and California's equivalent state statute.
On September 27, 2019, the California plaintiff class filed a
motion for class certification of both California-based and
nationwide classes. The Company filed a response to this motion
disputing the plaintiff class' right to broad class treatment of
the claims at issue. The Court ultimately certified a nationwide
class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive
relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are
successful on the merits of their claims.
On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General’s Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019.
However, on August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a
Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit
its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity
defense in the case.
While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the
case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.
On July 20, 2020, the trial court for the two Washington cases
alerted the Company that the litigation continued to be on
"standby" due to the COVID-19 pandemic, "which is still 'raging and
explosive'" in the jurisdiction.
As a result, a probable trial date is unknown.
The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits.
The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters
at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably
estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.
The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GEO GROUP: Facing Hartel Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------
The GEO 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 company is a named
defendant in a purported shareholder class action suit initiated by
Steve Hartel.
On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C.
Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R.
Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, and operational and compliance policies, specifically
related to the Company's COVID-19 response procedures.
The lawsuit is brought by Steve Hartel individually and on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the
alleged class period between February 27, 2020 through and
including June 16, 2020.
The complaint alleges that the Company, Messrs. Zoley and Evans
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert
fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper.
The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and Messrs. Zoley and Evans.
The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at
this time, as a loss is not considered probable or reasonably
estimable at this preliminary stage of the lawsuit.
The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GEO GROUP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO Group" or the
"Company")(NYSE: GEO) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, and indexed under 20-cv-81063, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired GEO Group securities
between February 27, 2020, and June 16, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased GEO Group securities during
the class period, you have until September 7, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
GEO Group is purportedly the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of secure facilities, processing
centers, and community reentry centers in the U.S., Australia,
South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO Group is also
purportedly a leading provider of enhanced in-custody
rehabilitation, post-release support, electronic monitoring, and
community-based programs. The Company's worldwide operations
include the ownership and/or management of, among other facilities,
halfway houses in the U.S.
Between late 2019 and early 2020, a novel strain of the coronavirus
disease, commonly referred to as COVID-19, became an ongoing global
pandemic, with the outbreak first identified in Wuhan, China, in
December 2019. The virus quickly spread to other countries,
including the U.S., prompting state, federal, and private parties
to enact various health and safety measures to halt the spread of
the disease, which has since claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives, with over one hundred thousand deaths in the U.S. alone. To
date, the State of Kansas ("Kansas") has experienced at least
12,970 cases and 261 deaths related to COVID-19.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO Group maintained woefully
ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those inadequate
procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to
significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the Company was
vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 17, 2020, during pre-market hours, The Intercept published
an article entitled "GEO Group's Blundering Response to the
Pandemic Helped Spread Coronavirus in Halfway Houses." The article
reported details of a significant COVID-19 outbreak at the Grossman
Center, a halfway house in Leavenworth, Kansas, operated by GEO
Group—which "was for weeks the hardest hit federal halfway house
in the country" in terms of confirmed cases of COVID-19. Citing
interviews with residents of the Grossman Center, The Intercept
characterized GEO Group's response as "blundering" and reported,
"that the virus spread not in spite of the facility's efforts to
contain it, but because of it." According to the article, the
Grossman Center continued to keep its residents in overcrowded
conditions without enforcing personal protective measures even as
COVID-19 diagnoses at the facility increased.
On this news, GEO Group's stock price fell $1.03 per share, or
7.8%, to close at $12.17 per share on June 17, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
GERON CORP: Court Approves Selection of Lead Counsel & Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the trial court overseeing the consolidated
putative securities class action suit currently pending before the
Northern District of California has approved lead counsel selected
by the lead plaintiff.
On January 23 and February 14, 2020, two putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the
Company and one of its officers.
On March 5, 2020, a third putative securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, naming as defendants the company and two of its
officers. On March 19, 2020, the New Jersey lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.
The remaining putative securities class action lawsuits allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company
related to IMbark during the period from March 19, 2018 to
September 26, 2018.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company failed
to disclose facts related to the alleged failure by IMbark to meet
the two primary endpoints of the trial, spleen response rate and
Total Symptom Score, and that the company's stock price dropped
when such information was disclosed.
The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees.
On May 14, 2020, the Court consolidated the putative securities
class action lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 27,
2020, the Court approved lead counsel selected by the lead
plaintiff and directed the lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint no later than August 20, 2020.
Geron said, "It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or
other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors
as defendants. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend against the pending lawsuits."
Geron Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that currently
supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc.
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Drugs Price-Fixing Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, 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 class suits over alleged rigging of the price of HIV drugs.
The company -- along with Japan Tobacco Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company and Johnson & Johnson, Inc. -- have been named as
defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related
to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in
combination antiretroviral therapy.
Japan Tobacco was recently dismissed from the primary lawsuit after
a favorable court ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs allege that we (and the other remaining defendants)
engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection
laws.
The lawsuits, which have been or may be consolidated, are all
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and seek to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class
of end-payor purchasers, including patients. A similar lawsuit
recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida has been consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs seek
damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief.
The company intends to vigorously defend ourselves in these
actions.
Gilead said, "While we believe these cases are without merit, we
cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful
in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary
damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief awarded
in favor of plaintiffs."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, 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 related to the side effects of its HIV
drugs, namely, Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild.
The company has been named as a defendant in one class action
lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread,
Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild.
Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or
Stribild caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth
injuries.
The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in
California, Delaware and Hawaii, involve more than 16,000
plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.
The company intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions.
Gilead said, "While we believe these cases are without merit, we
cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful
in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary
damages."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GOLDENWEST DIAMOND: Crosson Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldenwest Diamond
Corporation. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Goldenwest Diamond Corporation doing business as: The Jewelry
Exchange, Case No. 1:20-cv-03697-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Goldenwest Diamond Corporation, which does business as The
Jewelry Exchange, is a diamond importer and manufacturer in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Ruzhinskaya Appeals Ruling in Spiro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tatyana Ruzhinskaya filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated July 7, 2020, in the lawsuit titled Spiro v.
HealthPort Technologies, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-2921, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer granted HealthPort's motion for summary judgment as to
all three claims, and denied Ruzhinskaya's motion for partial
summary judgment.
The long-running class action, now at the summary judgment stage,
involves claims of excessive charges for medical records under a
New York statute, Public Health Law ("PHL") Section 18, which
governs access to and charges for patient medical records.
Ruzhinskaya at first brought, but then dropped, claims against the
hospital, Beth Israel Medical Center, that housed the medical
records of her deceased mother, copies of which Ruzhinskaya
requested and obtained pursuant to Section 18. Instead, Ruzhinskaya
now sues solely the release of information ("ROI") company,
HealthPort, with whom Beth Israel contracted to photocopy and
provide those records to requesters on its behalf.
The putative class action was originally brought in New York state
court in March 2014. On April 25, 2014, HealthPort removed the case
to the Court based on the Class Action Fairness Act. On May 27,
2014, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint
("FAC").
The FAC brought claims on behalf of three Plaintiffs. Each had
sought and obtained medical records from a different New York
hospital which had contracted with Healthport to provide those
copies on its behalf. The hospitals were (1) Beth Israel, from whom
Ruzhinskaya (through an attorney) had sought records relating to
her deceased mother, Marina Rochniak, whose estate Ruzhinskaya
serves as Administrator; (2) Mount Sinai Hospital, from whom
Plaintiff Charles Spiro had sought records; and (3) Montefiore
Hospital, from whom plaintiff Ismael Torres had sought records.
Ruzhinskaya, Spiro, and Torres sued the three hospitals, along with
Healthport, which they alleged was a ROI company in the business of
duplicating and copying documents including medical records, in a
putative class action filed on behalf of all persons in New York
State whom Healthport had charged 75 cents per page for such
copies. The Plaintiffs claimed that this charge was excessive.
They brought claims under a New York statute, Public Health Law
("PHL") Section 18, under New York General Business Law ("GBL")
Section 349, and for unjust enrichment.
The appellate case is captioned as Spiro v. HealthPort
Technologies, LLC, Case No. 20-2627, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Tatyana Ruzhinskaya, as Administratix of the
Estate of Marina Rochniak, Deceased, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
20 Church Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 218-2725
E-mail: mjasinski@motleyrice.com
Defendants-Appellees HealthPort Technologies, LLC and Beth Israel
Medical Center are represented by:
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
- and -
Sandra Hauser, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 768-6700
E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by SISC for Monopolizing Sale of Xyrem
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Insured Schools of California ("SISC"), on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC.; WEST WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.; ROXANE LABORATORIES,
INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; ENDO INTERNATIONAL, PLC; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC; LUPIN INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
LTD.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS USA, INC; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC; WOCKHARDT LTD.; MORTON
GROVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC,; WOCKHARDT USA LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-06495 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for their violations of state
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws
concerning the narcolepsy drug Xyrem and its A-B generic
equivalent.
Xyrem (sodium oxybate) accounted for over a billion dollars
annually that accounted for over 70% of the Company's revenue,
according to the complaint. Loss of patent exclusivity would
destroy its revenue. Price competition from generic competitors
would bring competitive market forces to bear and would drive
prices Xyrem prices down.
Facing a patent cliff, and the impact of competitive market forces,
Jazz turned to an anticompetitive scheme to delay generic entry and
maintain its monopoly, the Plaintiff alleges. This scheme included,
among other things, obtaining invalid and unenforceable patents and
improperly listing these patents in the FDA's Orange Book,
prosecuting sham litigation based on fraudulent, invalid, or
unenforceable patents, abusing the REMS program, and filing sham
citizen petitions. Jazz pursued that scheme.
According to the complaint, Jazz also raised prices to
supracompetitive levels. Since 2007, Jazz has raised the price of
Xyrem from approximately $2.04 per milliliter to approximately
$29.69, an increase of over 1,350%. For a patient taking a dosage
in the middle of the effective range, the monthly cost of Xyrem
exceeds $13,000.2 One study showed that Jazz raised price more than
any other pharmaceutical company for price increases on a single
drug. In addition, Jazz pursued a plan to "product hop" to avoid
generic substitution laws, thereby destroying any future generic's
market share and forcing consumers to continue to pay
supracompetitive prices for years in the future.
The Defendants' anticompetitive behavior prevented, delayed, and
restricted competition in the market for Xyrem and AB-rated generic
versions in the United States and its territories, the Plaintiff
contends. As a result, no generic version of Xyrem has entered the
market and full generic competition will not occur until at least
December 31, 2025. The Defendants' scheme caused consumers to pay
supracompetitive prices for brand and generic Xyrem. The Plaintiff
seeks overcharge damages arising from the Defendants' unlawful and
anticompetitive tactics to maintain and allocate the monopoly in
the market for indirect purchasers of sodium oxybate in the United
States and its territories. The Plaintiff insists that it and the
Class have been injured by Jazz, Roxane, Amneal, Par, Lupin,
Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Watson, and Mallinckrodt's anticompetitive
conduct in the form of overcharges for branded Xyrem.
The Plaintiff indirectly purchased and paid for some or all the
purchase price for Xyrem that was manufactured by Defendant Jazz.
Jazz is the manufacturer of Xyrem (sodium oxybate), a blockbuster
drug.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
JEWELRY BOUTIQUE: Conner Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jewelry Boutique,
LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Jewelry
Boutique, LLC doing business as: Helen Ficalora, Case No.
1:20-cv-03695 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Helen Ficalora offers jewelry with its signature designs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KABBAGE INC: Ratliff CPA Files Class Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kabbage Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Ratliff CPA Firm PC, a South Carolina
Professional Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated businesses, individuals businesses, and
individuals v. Kabbage Inc., Customers Bancorp Inc., Customers
Bank, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-02955-BHH (D.S.C., Aug.
14, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Kabbage, Inc., is an online financial technology company based in
Atlanta, Georgia. The Company provides funding directly to small
businesses and consumers through an automated lending
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Charles Tanenbaum, Esq.
MARK C. TANENBAUM PA
1017 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Suite 101
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 577-5100
Fax: (843) 722-4688
Email: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
Michael D. Wright, Esq.
Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq.
SAVAGE ROYALL AND SHEHEEN
PO Drawer 10
Camden, SC 29020
Phone: (803) 432-4391
Email: mwright@thesavagefirm.com
vsheheen@thesavagefirm.com
- and -
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
RICAHRD A. HARPOOTLIAN PA
1410 Laurel Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 252-4848
Email: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
KENTUCKY: Court Refuses to Dismiss J.B-K. Suit Over FCM Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned J.B-K.-1 and J.B-K.-2, et al. v. SECRETARY OF
THE KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Case
No. 3:18-cv-00025-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a Memorandum Opinion &
Order ruling that:
-- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED;
-- Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony is
DENIED;
-- Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS
MOOT;
-- As to Count I of the Amended Complaint, the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to the
Children's Class and the Caregivers' Class, but DENIED with
respect to the Cabinet Custody Class, and the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with respect to the
Children's Class and the Caregivers' Class, but GRANTED
with respect to the Cabinet Custody Class;
-- As to Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with
respect to the Children's Class and the Caregivers' Class,
but DENIED with respect to the Cabinet Custody Class, and
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with
respect to the Children's Class and the Caregivers' Class,
but GRANTED with respect to the Cabinet Custody Class; and
-- As to Count IV of the Amended Complaint, Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED.
The case centers around a dispute involving Kentucky's
implementation of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act with
respect to foster care maintenance payments. The Defendants argue
that in order to be eligible for these payments, a removed child
must be placed in the custody of the Cabinet for Health and Family
Services. But what happens when a judge places a child directly
with a relative or "fictive kin"? Is the custody requirement met in
this circumstance? The Plaintiffs argue that that the answer is
yes, and that in implementing this "custody requirement," the
Defendants have contravened Title IV-E and the Equal Protection
clause of the 14th Amendment. The Plaintiffs further allege that
the Defendants have violated their Due Process rights by refusing
to afford them a hearing on the denial of benefits.
This dispute arises out of the parties' differing interpretations
of the law regarding who is eligible to receive foster care
maintenance payments. The Defendants in this case, the Kentucky
Cabinet for Health and Family Services (the Cabinet) and the
Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) are the state
agencies responsible for administering the federally approved
Foster Care Maintenance Program (FCMP).
The Named Plaintiffs in this matter are children and their
caregivers, who have become involved in dependency, neglect, and
abuse (DNA) proceedings within the courts of Kentucky. Most of the
child plaintiffs in this case were removed from their homes of
origin by through a dependency, neglect and abuse proceeding and
placed directly by the court with relative or fictive kin
caregivers. The relative and fictive kin caregivers of these
children are also Named Plaintiffs in this action. A smaller subset
of plaintiff children were placed into the custody of the Cabinet
as the result of a DNA proceeding, and the Cabinet then placed
these children in the care of a relative or fictive kin caregiver.
The relative and fictive kin caregivers with whom these children
were placed by the Cabinet are also Named Plaintiffs in this
action.
Each of the Plaintiffs' claims hinges on whether a child's
"placement and care are the responsibility of the State agency
administering the State plan" for foster care maintenance payments
when the DNA court places the child directly into the custody of a
relative or fictive kin caregiver, as opposed to placing the child
in the custody of the Cabinet. 42 U.S.C. Section 672(B)(i). If not,
then the Defendants have not violated Sections 672, 671 or 45
C.F.R. 1355.30, nor can they be said to have violated the Due
Process or Equal Protection clauses.
In its Order dated March 13, 2020, the Court certified four classes
of Plaintiffs: the Children's Class, the Caregivers' Class, and the
Cabinet Custody Class.
The Defendants' main argument for dismissal is that a handful of
the Named Plaintiffs' claims have become moot. The Defendant argues
that once a child plaintiff achieves permanency, whether through
adoption or a return to their home of origin, then those
Plaintiffs' and their guardians' claims are mooted. Consequently
they lack standing to proceed.
District Judge Gregory F. Van notes that on March 13, 2020, this
Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
certified four classes of plaintiffs. That Order found that the
Named Plaintiffs' claims would "relate back" to the date of filing
and, therefore, the Plaintiffs were qualified to serve as class
representatives. Judge Van opines that Article III requires there
be a live case or controversy before the court, but the controversy
may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class
represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the
named plaintiff has become moot," as here, citing Sosna v. Iowa,
419 U.S. 393, 402 (1975). Hence, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
for lack of standing is DENIED.
Judge Van writes: In a perfect world there are no needy children.
In a less perfect world, all needy children removed from their
homes and the relative and fictive kin caregivers that nurture them
would receive financial assistance from state and federal
government, regardless of how the children came to be placed in a
relative's care. But that is not this world. State and federal law
draws a distinction between children who are placed by the Cabinet
in state foster care facilities, and those who are placed by a
court into the temporary custody of a relative. Only the former may
benefit from Title IV-E in Kentucky.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y78n9mut from Leagle.com.
KEYCORP: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keycorp. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Keycorp, Case No. 1:20-cv-06486 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KeyCorp is a bank holding company. The Company is a bank-based
financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Kingold Jewelry, Inc. ("Kingold" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: KGJI) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-03050, is on behalf
of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Kingold
securities between March 15, 2018, and June 28, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Kingold securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 31, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Kingold purports to design, manufacture, and sell 24-karat gold
jewelry and Chinese ornaments in the People's Republic of China.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to
fraudulently secure loans; (ii) consequently, the Company would
face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold
Exchange; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On June 29, 2020, before the market opened, Caixin Global published
an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of $2 Billion of
Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among other
things, that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually gilded
copper as collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as a
result, and that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanghai Gold
Exchange.
On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share, or over
24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
KKW BEAUTY: Bunting Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KKW Beauty, LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. KKW
Beauty, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03696 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KKW Beauty, LLC, is a cosmetics company by Kim Kardashian
West.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Continues to Defend Julian Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation 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 continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Pamela
Julian.
On December 29, 2015, Pamela Julian, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated filed a class action suit in United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, against Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona
LLC.
The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: 1)
failure to pay minimum wage for the first day of orientation; 2)
failure to pay minimum wage for time spent studying; 3) failure to
pay minimum wage for 16 hours per day; and 4) failure to pay
minimum wage for the first eight hours of sleeper berth time.
In December 2019, the court awarded damages for failure to pay
minimum wage for 16 hours per day. The likelihood that a loss has
been incurred is probable and estimable, and the loss has
accordingly been accrued as of June 30, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Settlement Amount in Sheer Already Paid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation 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 Company
has paid the settlement amount approved by the court in the class
action suit initiated by Joseph Sheer, Virginia Van Dusen, Jose
Motolinia, Vickii Schwalm, Peter Wood.
On December 22, 2009, a class action suit was filed in the Unites
States District Court of Arizona by Joseph Sheer, Virginia Van
Dusen, Jose Motolinia, Vickii Schwalm, Peter Wood against Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry
Moyes, and Chad Killebrew.
The putative class alleges that Swift misclassified independent
contractors as independent contractors, instead of employees, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws.
The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the
lease agreements that certain independent contractors have entered
into with Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC. The putative class
seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, other costs, and
attorneys' fees.
In January 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement
in this matter. In March 2020, the Company paid the settlement
amount approved by the court.
As of June 30, 2020, the Company has a reserve accrued for
anticipated costs associated with finalizing this matter.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Turner Sues Over Wrongful Withholding of Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Turner, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN;
LIBERTY MUTUAL MEDICAL PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN
RETIREMENT BOARD; LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC., a Massachusetts
company; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts company;
and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-11530-FDS (D.
Mass., Aug. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act to get back the benefits
the Plaintiff earned and that the Defendants are wrongfully
withholding.
According to the complaint, Liberty Mutual claims to hold these
supposed core "values:" to "be open," "act responsibly," "put
people first," and to "keep it simple." Apparently, those
principles do not apply to its own hard-working employees, like
former employee and Plaintiff, Thomas Turner. At issue here are
Liberty Mutual's broken promises regarding important retirement
benefits, including valuable medical/health benefits, for employees
and retirees like Mr. Turner--promises those employees were relying
on and that the employees needed to help secure their retirements
and their family's well-being after years of service to Liberty
Mutual.
In short, Mr. Turner avers, Liberty Mutual promised a group of
important employees, including him, a valuable set of retirement
medical benefits in exchange for their years of service, including
post-retirement medical/health benefits per the Liberty Mutual
Health Plan. The Plan itself, the Summary Plan Descriptions ("SPD")
that regularly go to employees further describing The Plan, and
additional statements by Liberty personnel, all promised these
valuable post-retirement medical benefits commensurate with their
"years of service," or consistent with their hire date, i.e., the
more tenure an employee had, the greater their benefits under The
Plan.
Importantly, Mr. Turner contends, Liberty Mutual and The Plan
promised him and his colleagues that prior years of service with
companies Liberty Mutual had acquired, like Safeco Insurance in the
case of Mr. Turner, would all be counted toward the "years of
service" component when calculating Liberty Mutual retirement
benefits. The hire date used for calculating retirement benefits,
in other words, would be the original hire date at the acquired
company.
Mr. Turner and hundreds of his colleagues were part of Safeco when
Liberty acquired Safeco in 2008, and by the time Mr. Turner retired
in 2019, he had worked 38+ years for Safeco/Liberty Mutual.
However, once it was time for Mr. Turner and others to retire or
apply for their promised benefits, Liberty Mutual reneged, Mr.
Turner alleges. Liberty now takes the position that the prior years
of service with Safeco should never have been counted and that they
will not be counted, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Mr. Turner is a participant in the Defendant's LIBERTY
MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN and LIBERTY MUTUAL MEDICAL PLAN, an
employee retirement plan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff C. Chang, Esq.
CHANG LAW GROUP, LLC
One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 307-1238
Email: jeff@jchanglaw.com
- and -
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
LITTLE CAESAR: Murphy Appeals Rulings in ADA Suit to Second Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Murphy filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2020, Order dated July 3, 2020,
and Judgment dated July 6, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Murphy v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-10329, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards to
consumers that contain writing in Braille and to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the Plaintiff contends. He adds that because the
Defendant's store gift cards are not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its store gift cards will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The appellate case is captioned as Murphy v. Little Caesar
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 20-2562, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel Schreck, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
99 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 867-3838
E-mail: dschreck@koppellaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Little Cesar Enterprises, Inc. is represented
by:
Sean J. Kirby, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
E-mail: skirby@sheppardmullin.com
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Ross Appeals D.D.C. Decision to D.C. Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Vernon Ross and Debra Josey filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled In re: Vernon Ross, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02508-KBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ketanji
Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
certification as a class action and preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned VERNON ROSS and DEBRA
JOSEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-2508(KBJ) (D.D.C.).
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has engaged in a pattern
or practice of employment discrimination that is manifest in
Lockheed Martin's performance appraisal system. Their three-count
complaint claims that Lockheed's performance review process has
been systemically injurious in a manner that amounts to both
intentional race discrimination (Count I) and disparate impact race
discrimination (Count II). Plaintiff Ross further contends, solely
on his own behalf, that Lockheed retaliated against him for filing
a Charge of Discrimination and/or complaining to senior executives
at the Company of racial discrimination faced by him and other
African-American employees (Count III).
Critically, the Plaintiffs seek to prosecute the race
discrimination claims on behalf of the class of plaintiffs who are
all salaried non-represented African-American employees below the
level of Vice President who received at least one performance
evaluation between Jan. 1, 2013 and Feb. 29, 2016, with an overall
rating below significantly exceeded commitments while employed at
Lockheed Martin.
The Plaintiffs have filed their putative class action complaint
along with a proposed Settlement Agreement. One key feature of the
resolution that they have negotiated with Lockheed (in addition to
a $22.8 million settlement fund and certain changes to Lockheed's
performance appraisal process) is the class members' agreement to
release a broad swath of potential legal claims against the
company, including claims that have nothing whatsoever to do with
Lockheed's performance review procedures. Also noteworthy is what
is not featured in the proposed Settlement Agreement: how much
money each class member can expect to receive in exchange for
releasing any and all race discrimination claims that were or could
have been asserted against Lockheed.
In their instant motion for preliminary certification of this case
as a class action and preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement, the Plaintiffs request that the Court make a preliminary
determination that the complaint satisfies the requirements of a
viable class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and
they also seek preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement so
that the class-wide notice and detailed claim forms can be
distributed.
The Court notes that in this case, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class for settlement purposes that, in effect, is comprised of
virtually every salaried African-American employee of Lockheed
Martin. They say that the 5,500-plus members of their proposed
class have suffered race discrimination as a result of Lockheed's
performance review process, and have been victimized in a manner
that is susceptible to common proof, but they do not present any
theory of how the performance appraisal system resulted in racially
disparate outcomes, much less evidence that the challenged system
discriminates against all class members in the same way, as the
commonality element of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
requires.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Vernon Ross, et al., Case
No. 20-8002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Vernon Ross and Debra Josey, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Michael David Lieder, Esq.
Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
mlieder@findjustice.com
sskalet@findjustice.com
- and -
Grace E. Speights, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 373-6000
Facsimile: (202) 739-5189
E-mail: grace.speights@morganlewis.com
MDL 2724: Class Suits v. Perrigo Over Clobetasol Drug Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company 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 27, 2020, that the company is a named
defendant in a class action suits related to Clobetasol drug.
Perrigo is a defendant in several cases in the generic pricing
multidistrict litigation MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court
for Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
This multidistrict litigation, which has many cases that do not
include Perrigo, includes class action and opt-out cases for
federal and state antitrust claims, as well as complaints filed by
various of the States alleging violations of state antitrust laws.
On July 14, 2020, the court issued an order designating the
following cases to proceed on a more expedited basis than the other
cases in MDL No. 2724: (a) the States' May 2019 case alleging an
overarching conspiracy involving more than 120 products (which does
not name Perrigo a defendant) and (b) class actions alleging
"single drug" conspiracies involving Clomipramine, Pravastatin, and
Clobetasol. Perrigo is a defendant in the Clobetasol cases but not
the others.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
MDO2 FITNESS: Fails to Properly Compensate Wages, McKee Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah McKee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. MDO2 Fitness, LLC d/b/a O2 Fitness, Case No. 2020-CP-10- (S.C.
Com. Pleas, Charleston Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), is brought under the
South Carolina Wages Act for the Defendant's failure to properly
compensate the Plaintiff.
The Defendant assigned to the Plaintiff various mandatory job
duties that were not compensated for by either an hourly rate or by
an opportunity to earn commission, including weekly meetings and
gym cleaning sessions, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff
and others regularly provided labor for the Defendant for which
they were not properly compensated. The Defendants violated the
South Carolina Wages act by, amongst other things, failing to
properly compensate the Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a personal trainer
at the South Carolina locations.
The Defendant runs gyms known as O2 Fitness Clubs throughout South
Carolina and had at one point as few as 12 locations in South
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
O. Grady Query, Esq.
Michael Ellis, Esq.
QUERY SAUTTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
147 Wappoo Creek Dr., Suite 202
Charleston, SC 29412
Phone: 843.795.9500
Fax: 843.762.1500
Email: gquery@qlawsc.com
mellis@qlawsc.com
MEDPACE INC: Faces Saleba ADEA Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Saleba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDPACE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00634-MWM (S.D. Ohio,
Aug. 17, 2020), is brought under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, as amended by the Older Worker Benefit Protection
Act, to correct the Defendant's unlawful employment practices on
the basis of age, and to provide appropriate relief to the
Plaintiff, who has been adversely affected by these unlawful
employment practices.
On April 15 2020, the Plaintiff was told that he was being laid
off, effective immediately, along with a number of other employees,
allegedly due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. This group layoff was one
of at least two group layoffs the Defendant conducted in 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that at least 100 other employees, who were also
subject to the lay-offs were over the age of 40, while a
disproportionate number of younger, less experienced employees were
retained by Medpace. Because the Defendant claimed that the
Plaintiff's termination, as well as the termination of others, was
based on the economic consequences of COVID-19, the Plaintiff was
surprised to discover in May, less than a month after his
termination, that the Defendant was in fact actively recruiting
new, younger employees.
The Defendant held a virtual recruiting event for the Plaintiff's
former position. The Defendant refused to allow the Plaintiff to
register for the event. The Plaintiff also saw that Clinical
Research Associate Positions were open for applications on the
Medpace Web site. In short, the Plaintiff and other older
individuals were fired from their jobs, which the Defendant then
attempted to fill with younger, outside applicants, despite
claiming they could no longer afford to staff those positions due
to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Plaintiff contends.
In violation of the OWBPA, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff with basic and statutorily mandated information required
by the OWBPA, including failing to allow the Plaintiff and other
employees over the age of 40 subject to lay off 45 days to consider
the Release; failing to provide a list of employees including the
ages and job titles of individuals terminated through the layoff
programs to the Plaintiff; and failing to provide the Plaintiff
with the eligibility factors used to determine who would be subject
to lay off, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Paul Saleba, age 67, was an employee of the Defendant,
where he had worked for the last six years, most recently serving
in the role of Clinical Research Associate.
Medpace is a clinical research organization based in Cincinnati,
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randolph H. Freking, Esq.
FREKING MYERS & REUL LLC
600 Vine Street, Ninth Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 721-1975
Fax: (513) 651-2570
Email: randy@fmr.law
MEI PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against MEI Pharma, Inc. ("MEI" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: MEIP) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and docketed under 20-cv-01543, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired MEI Pharma securities between August 2, 2017,
and July 1, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased MEI securities during the
class period, you have until October 9, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
MEI Pharma was founded in 2000 and is based in San Diego,
California. The Company was formerly known as Marshall Edwards,
Inc. and changed its name to MEI Pharma, Inc. in July 2012. MEI
Pharma is a late-stage pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer. MEI
Pharma's clinical drug candidates include, among others,
Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase ("HDAC") inhibitor.
MEI Pharma and Helsinn Healthcare SA, a Swiss pharmaceutical
corporation ("Helsinn"), with which MEI Pharma had an exclusive
worldwide license, development, manufacturing and commercialization
agreement for Pracinostat in acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"),
myelodysplastic syndrome, and other potential indications (the
"Helsinn License Agreement"), were evaluating Pracinostat in, among
other studies, a pivotal Phase 3 global registration clinical trial
for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit
to receive intensive chemotherapy (the "Phase 3 Pracinostat
Trial"). The Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, which was initiated in
June 2017, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
that would enroll worldwide approximately 500 adults with newly
diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Pracinostat or placebo with
azacitidine as background therapy. The primary endpoint of the
trial was overall survival.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) MEI Pharma had overstated
Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an AML treatment for the target
population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was
unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (iii)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and
prospects for Pracinostat; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 2, 2020, during pre-market hours, MEI Pharma issued a press
release announcing that it was discontinuing the Phase 3
Pracinostat Trial. Specifically, the Company advised that an
interim futility analysis of the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial,
undertaken by the study's Independent Data Monitoring Committee
("IDMC"), "has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the primary
endpoint of overall survival compared to the control group," and
that "[b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis, the decision
was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients and end the
study," which "was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety
concerns."
Following MEI Pharma's announcement, the Company's stock price fell
$0.78 per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on July 2,
2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Duncan 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. 20-2519, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Tyneik Duncan 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 Circuit Appeal Filed v. Fabian 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. 20-2619, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Fior Fabian 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
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 28, 2020, that the motion seeking dismissal of
the class action suit entitled, Danker v. Papa John's
International, Inc. et al., is pending.
On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The District Court
appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System to lead
the case.
An amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2019, which the
Company moved to dismiss. On March 16, 2020, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint
failed to state any viable cause of action.
The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint on
April 30, 2020, which the Company moved to dismiss.
The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to
the second amended complaint and intends to vigorously defend
against the case.
The Company has not recorded any liability related to this lawsuit
as of June 28, 2020 as it does not believe a loss is probable or
reasonably estimable.
Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.
PAPA JOHN'S: Durling Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Papa John's International, 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, Durling et al v.
Papa John's International, Inc.
Durling et al v. Papa John's International, Inc., is a
conditionally certified collective action filed in May 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that corporate restaurant delivery drivers were not
properly reimbursed for vehicle mileage and expenses in accordance
with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In July 2018, the District Court granted a motion to certify a
conditional corporate collective class and the opt-in notice
process has been completed.
As of the close of the opt-in period on October 29, 2018, 9,571
drivers opted into the collective class.
The Company continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing in this
matter and intends to vigorously defend this action.
The Company has not recorded any liability related to this lawsuit
as of June 28, 2020 as it does not believe a loss is probable or
reasonably estimable.
Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.
PBF HOLDING: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 2021
------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC 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 trial in the case,
Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is
scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and the company's
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining and the
manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil
were named as defendants in a class action and representative
action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas,
Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court") and alleges
negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing
private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public
nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from
the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion
at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by
ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On
July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination.
With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added
an additional plaintiff. On March 18, 2019, the class certification
hearing was held and the judge took the matter under submission. On
April 1, 2019, the judge issued an order denying class
certification.
On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.
On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion.
The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
Trial currently is scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.
PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company 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 27, 2020, that discoveries are ongoing
in the class action suits related to overarching conspiracy
allegations related to the sales of Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole.
The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of
certain drugs and/or allocate customers for those products
starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013.
The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The
products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole.
The court denied motions to dismiss each of the complaints alleging
"single drug" conspiracies involving Perrigo, and the cases are
proceeding in discovery.
As noted above, the Clobetasol cases have been designated to
proceed on a more expedited schedule than the other cases. That
schedule has not yet been set.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
RED LOBSTER: Matzura Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Steven Matzura filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated July 6, 2020, and Judgment dated July 8,
2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Matzura v. Red Lobster
Hospitality LLC, Case No. 19-cv-9929, 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 Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Red Lobster Hospitality LLC is an American casual dining restaurant
chain headquartered in San Francisco, California.
The appellate case is captioned as Matzura v. Red Lobster
Hospitality LLC, Case No. 20-2574, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G. SOLOTOFF
25 Melville Park Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (516) 695-0052
E-mail: ds@belllg.com
Defendant-Appellee Red Lobster Hospitality LLC is represented by:
Amanda L. Van Hoose Garofalo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 589-4610
Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
E-mail: agarofalo@bakerlaw.com
RIGHTECH INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Trogdon FLSA Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Trogdon, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RIGHTECH, INC. AND RTI SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 5:20-cv-00956 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' failure to
compensate the Plaintiff overtime pay at the FLSA-mandated
time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of 40 per workweek.
The Defendants improperly disguised wage payments to the Plaintiff
as a "per diem," according to the complaint. The Defendants
illegally classified the per diem as an expense reimbursement
instead of as wages. As a result, the improperly classified "per
diem" payments were excluded from the regular rate of pay of the
Plaintiff and, thus, he was not paid overtime at the rate of time
and one half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
in a workweek.
The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
forty in a workweek at one and one-half times t regular rates of
pay, says the complaint
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from January 2018 to
October 2018 as a Field Engineer a/k/a Field Technician.
Rightech is a staffing company that assigns workers to other
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL: Salerno Medical Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned SALERNO MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, SENIOR
HEALTHCARE OUTREACH PROGRAM, INC., SM MEDICAL LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIVERSIDE MEDICAL
GROUP, LLP; UNITEDHEALTHCARE COMMUNITY PLAN, INC.; OPTUM, INC.;
OPTUM CARE, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN DOES 1-20; Case No. ESX L 004846 20, was
removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 14,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10539-JMV-JAD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Riverside Medical Group provides care from pediatrics to adult
care, general care to specialized care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohamed Nabulsi, Esq.
Steven I. Adler, Esq.
MANDELBAUM SALSBURG, PC
3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 105
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 243-7933
Fax: (973) 325-7467
Email: mnabulsi@lawfirm.ms
sadler@msgld.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven L. Penaro, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 210-9400
Email: steve.penaro@alston.com
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Calif. Suit Wins Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the settlement in the wage-and-hour class
action suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange,
has obtained preliminary court approval.
The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, which
was filed in August 2017, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break,
hourly and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and
necessary expenditure indemnification violations; failure to
maintain required wage records and furnish accurate wage
statements; and unfair competition.
A settlement has been reached and the Company received preliminary
court approval on July 13, 2020, following a brief COVID-19 delay.
The Company previously recorded adequate reserves to cover the
settlement.
SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined
components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the
United States and Europe. It was founded in 1916 and is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.
SURESOURCE LLC: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SURESOURCE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06521 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
17, 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 persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.kuhnrikonshop.com/,and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen reading software to read Web site content using her
computer.
The Defendant is a kitchen appliances company that owns and
operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
SYLVANE INC: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SYLVANE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06527-PGG (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 17, 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 persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.sylvane.com,and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen reading software to read Web site content using her
computer.
The Defendant is an air conditioner and heating products retailer
that owns and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
TESLA INC: Skiles Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wayne Skiles filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Wayne Skiles v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-05434-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges the car company coaxes consumers into handing over personal
information without their consent by scanning that information from
their driver's licenses before test drives. The suit claims Tesla,
along with Experian, Salesforce and app development firm Appstem,
violate various consumer privacy protection laws by doing so.
The lawsuit was brought by Wayne Skiles, a California man, on
behalf of consumers across the country.
The appellate case is captioned as Wayne Skiles v. Tesla, Inc., et
al., Case No. 20-16570, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by September 14, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on October 13, 2020;
-- Appellant Wayne Skiles' opening brief is due on
November 23, 2020;
-- Appellees Experian Marketing Services, Inc. and Tesla,
Inc.'s answering brief is due on December 23, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.
Plaintiff-Appellant WAYNE SKILES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq.
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: nicholas@kazlg.com
ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Jason Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
Defendant-Appellee TESLA, INC., FKA Tesla Motors, Inc. and EXPERIAN
MARKETING SERVICES, INC. are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq.
Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle Christopher Wong, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone: (415) 693-2026
E-mail: jgutkin@cooley.com
rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
- and -
Ryan Ball, Esq.
Cheryl L. O'Connor, Esq.
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Telephone: (949) 553-7515
E-mail: rball@jonesday.com
coconnor@jonesday.com
javogt@jonesday.com
TICKETLEAP INC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ticketleap, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ticketleap, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06482
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ticketleap is an online ticket sales and event marketing company
based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TOPPS COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03731 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Topps provides to their
non-disabled customers through http://www.Topps.com/.The
Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its Web site, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Topps.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by Topps. Yet, Topps.com contains thousands of
access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
and visually impaired customers to use the Web site, the Plaintiff
contends. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind
and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
Web site, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.
Topps.com is a commercial Web site that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to
browse sports' trading cards, posters, and other related products,
make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
TRADER JOE'S: Rosenfeld Sues Over False Marketing of Crackers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kalman Rosenfeld, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-03717
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to its crackers purporting to consist exclusively of a
12-grain blend under its Trader Joe's brand.
The Product, "12 Grain Mini Snack Crackers," is available to
consumers from the Defendant's retail stores and Web site and is an
sold in boxes of 10 OZ (284g). The Plaintiff alleges that the
representations are misleading because the Product contains: (1) a
de minimis amount of the 12-grain blend, (2) less of the 12
grain-blend than consumers expect and (3) predominantly of enriched
white flour. This is revealed through the fine print of the
ingredient list, indicating "enriched flour" is the predominant
flour, listed far ahead of the 12-grain blend ("Multigrain Flour
Blend").
According to the complaint, the name "12 Grain Mini Snack Crackers"
is misleading because it suggests and identifies one of the
ingredients--the 12 grain blend--yet fails to disclose another more
predominant ingredient, like refined white flour. Consumers seek
out products which contain flours other than enriched white flour,
for reasons related to health, wellness and nutrition and to avoid
negative health effects associated with white refined flour.
The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence
of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
of consumers like the Plaintiff. Had the Plaintiff and class
members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or
would have paid less for them.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.89 for boxes
of 10 OZ (284g), excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.
Trader Joe's Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells crackers purporting to consist exclusively of a 12-grain
blend under its Trader Joe's brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Gosse Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chelsey Gosse, on her behalf and
on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. Transworld
Systems, Inc. U.S. Bank, NA, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2007-3, Ratchford Law Group, P.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-01446-RDM (M.D.
Pa., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services. The Company focuses on commercial, education,
financial, government, healthcare, and other industries in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 351-0200
Fax: (215) 922-3874
Email: rcocco@rcn.com
TRI-STAR PRODUCTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-Star Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Tri-Star Products,
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03704 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tri-Star Products, Inc.'s primary business is taking provided ideas
and turning them into branded and global distributed products. The
Company markets home appliances, fitness equipment, cooking
innovations, and health and beauty products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA: Shen Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Shen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA AUTO GROUP, LLC, a Delaware
company, Case No. 2:20-cv-07419 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant to stop it from directing its agents
to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
pre-recorded and other telemarketing calls to consumers without
their consent.
The Company, doing business as Ganas Auto, sends text message to
solicit service reviews from consumers, according to the complaint.
Ganas Auto also makes pre-recorded calls to consumers regarding its
financing and insurance services without their prior express
written consent, including to consumers who are registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry. Furthermore, Ganas Auto lacks a
sufficient opt-out system that results in consumers being inundated
with calls, even after they have expressly opted out of receiving
calls and text messages.
In the Plaintiff's case, Ganas Auto sent him a text message and he
responded to the text message asking Ganas Auto to stop calling
him, says the complaint. Despite the do not call request, the
Plaintiff then received 3 unwanted pre-recorded calls to his cell
phone. In response to these calls, the Plaintiff files this lawsuit
seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from
violating the TCPA.
Plaintiff Alexander Shen is a resident of Covina, California.
Ganas Auto is a car dealership that among other things sells cars
and car insurance and provides financing and servicing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Schwartz, Esq.
ADAM J. SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW
5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 455-4016
Email: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
UNITED STATES: Warfield Sues Over Denial of CARES Emergency Cash
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Warfield, and all others similarly situated v. STEVEN T.
MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury;
CHARLES RETTING) in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.
4:20-cv-04121-RAL (D.S.D., Aug. 14, 2020), is brought to challenge
the intentional unlawful and unconstitutional conduct of the
Defendants, in which they deprived many incarcerated taxpayers the
benefits of the emergency cash assistance distributed in response
to the coronavirus pandemic.
The Plaintiff alleges that the denial is based solely on the fact
these taxpayers chosen not to follow the law and enlisted federal
and state correctional institutions to assist them.
The spread of the novel coronavirus has caused not only tens of
thousands of deaths and a nationwide public health crisis, but also
the most severe economic downturn in years. In the effort to stem
the tide of this nationwide emergency, Congress passed, and
President Trump signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act. Among other relief, the CARES Act
provides a financial lifeline to millions of people by distributing
through the tax systems immediate means--tested cash assistance,
which the federal government calls "ecomonic impact payments."
The CARES Act does not exclude, from this expansive aid program,
incarcerated taxpayers. The CARES Act makes needed assistance by
making the payments through the tax system only to those who are
eligible for, and filing tax returns using, a social security
number--essentially U.S. Citizens, but not limited to such.
The deprivation of this benefit to the Plaintiff undermines the
CARES Act's statutory language and goal of providing assistance to
Americans in need, frustrating the Act's efforts to jumpstart the
economy, according to the complaint. More fundamentally, the
Defendants unlawful conduct violates the Plaintiff due process and
equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments clauses.
This lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of who have
denied and deprived the benefits of the $1,200 economic payments,
they should have received pursuant to the CARES Act.
The Plaintiff is a United States citizen and has a valid social
security number and is forty-seven years old.
Defendant Steven T. Mnuchin is the Secretary of the Treasury.
Plaintiff Kelly Warfield, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, appears pro
se.[BN]
VANCUREN SERVICES: Woodward Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blaire Woodward, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. VANCUREN SERVICES, INC., and DAVID VAN
CUREN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01818 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 17, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act.
The Plaintiff says he consistently worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek during the three years prior to filing this Complaint. He
alleges that he has not been paid overtime compensation at a rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The FFCRA required that the Defendants pay the Plaintiff for leaves
of absence. However, the Defendants told the Plaintiff that they
were not required to pay him under the regulations. As such, the
Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff in accordance with the
FFCRA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Blaire Woodward began working for the Defendants in March
2014 as an hourly Tree Care Technician.
The Defendants are in the business of providing residential,
commercial and utility tree services in northeast Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Phone: 614-610-4134
Fax: 614-547-3614
Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
WRCDF Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
BAYRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
VEL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Wirecard AG (OTCMKT:WRCDF)
WRCDF Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 17, 2015
- June 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wirecard
AG made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during
the Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a
trust account that was missing; (2) Wirecard overstated its
financial results during the Class Period, including revenue and
EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or
countermeasures; (4) the Company's external auditor failed to audit
Wirecard in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTCMKT:BAYRY)
Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, 1) following its acquisition of
Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of
dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits
brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its
glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2)
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
VENTURE EXPRESS: Ward Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VENTURE EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00698 (M.D.
Tenn., Aug. 14, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages, overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and other statutory
penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff would regularly be
scheduled to work in in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff
was only paid for 40 hours per week, even though they regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff for all time worked resulted, not only in them
not being paid for all of the hours they worked but also required
them to work time in excess of 40 hours per week for which they
were not paid an overtime premium. The Defendant also failed to
maintain accurate time records of the time the Plaintiff worked at
the beginning and end of each shift.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Jackson, Tennessee.
Venture Express, Inc., is a Tennessee Corporation, duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
101 N. Highland Ave.
P. O. Box 266
Jackson, TN 38302
Phone: 731-423-5565
Facsimile: 731-423-5372
Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com
VINEYARD VINES: Calcano Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marcos Calcano filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated July 6, 2020, and Judgment dated July 6, 2020, entered
in the lawsuit entitled Calcano v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, Case No.
19-cv-11228, 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 Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Vineyard Vines, LLC, designs, manufactures, and retails apparel and
accessories.
The appellate case is captioned as Calcano v. Vineyard Vines, LLC,
Case No. 20-2642, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Marcos Calcano, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Oliver Koppell, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
99 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 867-3838
E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Vineyard Vines, LLC is represented by:
Michael Fleming, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309-6207
Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
E-mail: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com
WIRECARD AG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
WRCDF Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
BAYRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
VEL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Wirecard AG (OTCMKT:WRCDF)
WRCDF Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 17, 2015
- June 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wirecard
AG made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during
the Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a
trust account that was missing; (2) Wirecard overstated its
financial results during the Class Period, including revenue and
EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or
countermeasures; (4) the Company's external auditor failed to audit
Wirecard in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTCMKT:BAYRY)
Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, 1) following its acquisition of
Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of
dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits
brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its
glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2)
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8480&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
YGRENE ENERGY: N.D. Cal. Denies Woolley's Bid to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division, issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Classes in the case captioned GEORGE W. WOOLLEY,
TAMMY S. WOOLLEY, ANTHONY LOOK, JR., KIMBERLY LOOK, ALEJANDRO
MARCEY, and FELICIA MARCEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC., and YGRENE
ENERGY FUND FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-01258-LB (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Ygrene
Energy for misrepresentations relating to home-improvement loans
that finance environmental upgrades (such as solar panels or better
windows). The loans are called Property Assessed Clean Energy
("PACE") loans, and the alleged misrepresentations are that Ygrene
and its agents falsely told homeowners that the loans would attach
to their properties (like property taxes) and transfer upon sale to
the new owners and, correspondingly, failed to reveal that if
homeowners sold their homes or refinanced their mortgages, then
they would have to prepay the PACE loans and incur fees.
The Plaintiffs' claims are predicated on their payment of
prepayment of penalties and "surprise" fees in violation of
California and Florida laws prohibiting unfair practices and false
representations.
The Plaintiffs propose these classes:
(1) Prepayment Penalty Classes:
* All persons within the State of California who, during
the applicable statute of limitations, entered into a
PACE financing agreement originated and/or facilitated
by Ygrene in connection with their primary residence who
paid a Prepayment Penalty. (Proposed class
representatives: Kimberly and Anthony Look, Jr.); and
* All persons within the State of Florida who, during the
applicable statute of limitations, entered into a PACE
financing agreement originated and/or facilitated by
Ygrene in connection with their primary residence who
paid a Prepayment Penalty. (Proposed class
representatives: Tammy and George Woolley).
The claims for the California class members are violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), fraudulent
inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. The claims
for the Florida class members are a violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA");
(2) Surprise Fee Classes:
* All persons within the State of California who, during
the applicable statute of limitations, entered into a
PACE financing agreement originated and/or facilitated
by Ygrene in connection with their primary residence who
paid an Administrative Fee and/or an Escrow/Custodial
Fee in connection with prepayment. (Proposed class
representatives: Kimberly and Anthony Look, Jr.);
* All persons within the State of California who, during
the applicable statute of limitations, entered into a
PACE financing agreement originated and/or facilitated
by Ygrene in connection with their primary residence who
paid a Payoff Statement Fee. (Proposed class
representatives: Kimberly and Anthony Look, Jr.);
* All persons within the State of Florida who, during the
applicable statute of limitations, entered into a PACE
financing agreement originated and/or facilitated by
Ygrene in connection with their primary residence who
paid an Administrative Fee and/or an Escrow/Custodial
Fee in connection with prepayment. (Proposed class
representatives: Tammy and George Woolley.); and
* All persons within the State of Florida who, during the
applicable statute of limitations, entered into a PACE
financing agreement originated and/or facilitated by
Ygrene in connection with their primary residence who
paid a Payoff Statement Fee. (Proposed class
representatives: Tammy and George Woolley.)
The claims for the California class members are violations
of California's UCL and tortious interference. The
claims for the Florida class members are a violation of
Florida's FDUTPA and unjust enrichment; and
(3) Equitable Relief Class:
* All persons within the State of California and the state
of Florida who, during the applicable statute of
limitations, entered into a PACE financing agreement
originated and/or facilitated by Ygrene in connection
with their primary residence.
The Court states that it denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
the classes, primarily because they did not show that class members
were exposed to the challenged marketing materials. The Court
states that the Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the classes'
claims, and that there is no commonality and predominance among
those claims.
If the Plaintiffs had established commonality and predominance,
then a class action would be superior to individual suits,
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler notes. Judge Beeler adds that the
stakes for individual members are low, and litigation costs would
exceed the value of individual litigation.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to certify the proposed
classes and the motions to strike the expert submissions. The Court
directs the parties to confer on a new case schedule.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybt5d5v2 from Leagle.com.
YUEXPLORE LCC: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuexplore LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Yuexplore LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03709 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
YuExplore is an import/export business focused on bringing unique
and in-demand goods to the US market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
ZORLU MANUFACTURING: Web Site Unusable to Blinds, Calcano Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ZORLU MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06499-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://linensnow.com/, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint.
Because the Web site is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer.
ZORLU MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, operates the LinensNow online
retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
*********
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 ***