/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200909.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 181
Headlines
1&1 IONOS: New York Court Dismisses Williams Class Suit
168 8TH AVENUE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Pinzon Claims
4745 SECOND: Court Certifies Class of Exotic Dancers in Embry Suit
A-1 ROOFING: Celebrity Smiles Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
AMAZON.COM INC: Shepherd Balks at Freezing of Prime Membership
AMERICAN BULLION: Sosa Sues in New York Alleging Violation of ADA
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Defence Faces Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
AUSTRALIA: Spends AU$34 Million on Robo-Debt Litigation
AXA EQUITABLE: Appeals Ruling in Brach Family Suit to 2nd Circuit
B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Abdelaziz Appeals Ruling to Pennsylvania Super.
BAYER AG: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Pension Plan Participants Class Sought
BRASKEM SA: Faces Coutinho Securities Suit Over False Statements
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Barrett Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Settlement in Kautsman Suit Has Final Approval
CHARTER NEX: $140,000 Deal in Miller Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
CHRISTIAN SIRIANO: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CINCINNATI CAPITAL: Class & Merits Discovery in Lee Suit Combined
CLASSIC ACCESSORIES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Young Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
COLONY INSURANCE: Skillets Sues in Virginia Over Contract Breach
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Selane Products Seeks COVID Losses Coverage
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Farr Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CROSSROADS COURIER: Williams Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Seltz Suit Seeks Class Status
EA SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Ultimate Team Loot Boxes
EASTMAN KODAK: Johnson Fistel Alerts of Class Action Filing
EASTMAN KODAK: Saxena White Reminds of Oct. 13 Plaintiff Deadline
ECI MANAGEMENT: Insurer Has Duty to Defend, 11th Cir. Says
EOS IT: Herrera Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
EPPING GARDENS: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Infection
FLORIDA: Pinellas Teachers' Union Mulls Suit Over Online Classes
FRESH FARMS: Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default Denied
FRONTIER COOPERATIVE: Zanca Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
GENERAL MOTORS: Talley Sues Over Defective Starters in Camaro
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
GEO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Poor Handling of COVID-19
GEO GROUP: Jakubowitz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
GISLASON & HUNTER: Stuckey Sues in Minnesota Over FDCPA Violation
GRANTS PASS, OR: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Blake Civil Rights Suit
GREATCOLLECTIONS.COM LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
HCC SPECIALTY: Sued by R&J in California for Breach of Contract
HELPSYSTEMS: Lawsuit Mulled Over GlobalScape Acquisition Deal
IC SYSTEM: Robinson-Morris Files FDCPA Class Suit in D. Arizona
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, AR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baxter Claims
INTIRION CORP: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
IRIS USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
JO-ANN STORES, LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Claims
JONES DAY: Collective Status Sought for Equal Pay Lawsuit
JURA INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
KENNY FLOWERS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Sues Over Defective Telluride Windshields
KINTO USA: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
KRAPILS THE GREAT: Hankes Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
LENDLEASE: Class Actions Mulled Over Sale of Engineering Business
LOWRY FARMS: Benito Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LT. HAMILTON: Court Denies Class Certification of Inmate Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Marietta City Class Suit Pending
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Facing Shaver Putative Class Suit in Canada
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Strougo Class Suit Transferred to New Jersey
MD SOLARSCIENCES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blinds, Zanca Claims
MDL 2460: Bid to Certify Class in Niaspan Antitrust Suit Denied
MDL 2942: Court Won't Centralize 15 Business Interruption Suits
MONSANTO CO: Long Beach Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MOON JUICE: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
MORGAN STANLEY: Fails to Properly Secure Customer PII, Smith Says
MOUNT LAI LLC: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
NAILS INC: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Miller-Hobbs Suit in S.D. Indiana
NETFLIX: Indiana Cities File Class Action for Franchise Fees
NEVADA: Judgment to Force State to Reform Public Defender System
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Wilson in Gulino Bias Suit
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Tuition
NWPA PIZZA: Chludzinski Seeks OK of Class Action Notice
ONESPAN INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action
ORION INT'L: Class Certification Denial in Ascencio Suit Upheld
PETER NYGARD: Sons File Lawsuit Following Class Action
PROFOUND AESTHETIC: Nisbett Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
QUTOUTIAO INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Announces Class Action
RUBY PRINCESS: COVID-19 Survivor Seeks Answers Amid Class Action
SAFE HAVEN: Sporven Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
SAFECO INSURANCE: Dow Seeks to Certify Two Rule 23 Classes
SIMS GROUP: Sanft Seeks FLSA Collective Status
SOUTHERN METHODIST: Former Football Player Files Class Action
STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
SUNLESS SOLUTIONS: Zanca Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
SUNOCO INC: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Decision in Cline Suit
TC BAUER COMPANY: Faces Zanca Suit in New York Over ADA Violation
TEAM INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Weber Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
THERADOME INC: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TIGER BRANDS: Sells Processed Meats Business Amid Class Action
TRALEE AFFORDABLE: Davis Seeks to Certify 2 Settlement Classes
TWEEZERMAN INT'L: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Migrant Children Expulsion
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders COVID Test for Mesa Verde Detainees
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Senators Recommend Class Action Bans
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
VIRTUE LABS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
VITAL PROTEINS: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Wolosky Challenges Shareholder Rights Plan
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Z RESTAURANT: FLSA Conditional Certification Bid OK'd in Part
*********
1&1 IONOS: New York Court Dismisses Williams Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case, PAMELA WILLIAMS,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. 1&1 Ionos Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20 CV
1124-LTS-RWL (S.D. N.Y.).
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly,
Judge Swain dismissed with prejudice the case as to the named
Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs, and
without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration
of the action to the calendar of the undersigned if settlement is
not achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/qzv9fB from Leagle.com.
168 8TH AVENUE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Pinzon Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS AURELIO PINZON; and ADAN VIDAL LOPEZ RAMIREZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 168 8TH
AVENUE FOOD CORP. (D/B/A SQUARE DELI); and ADAM SALEH, Case
1:20-cv-06156 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation, to authorize and permit meal and rest periods, to
provide accurate wage statements, and to reimburse necessary
business expenses.
Plaintiff Pinzon was employed by the Defendants as a cook.
Plaintiff Ramirez was employed as staff.
168 8th Avenue Food Corp. owns, operates, or controls a deli,
located in New York City, under the name Square Deli. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
4745 SECOND: Court Certifies Class of Exotic Dancers in Embry Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MARY EMBRY, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. 4745 SECOND AVE.
LTD., D/B/A BIG EARL'S GOLDMINE, VAUNETTA WASHINGTON, Case No.
4:19-cv-00305-JAJ-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge John A. Jarvey
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
class:
"all persons who were or are employed by the Defendants as
exotic dancers at any time during the three years prior to
the commencement of this action (September 25, 2019) to
the present. Embry and members of the putative class
danced in designated areas of Big Earl's and performed
individual dances for the club’s clientele";
2. directing the Defendant to produce a list of names, last-
known mailing addresses and e-mail addresses for all
current and former employees of Big Earl's Gold Mine that
meet the definition of the conditionally certified class;
3. issuing notice be issued to all current and former Big
Earl's Gold Mine employees that meet the definition of the
class defined above by first class mail and e-mail and
that the class members are permitted to opt-in to the
class through a website; and
4. issuing notices to all potential class members who have
not responded to opt-in to this matter within 45 days of
the first issuance of the notice.
In her complaint, the Plaintiff contends that Big Earl's did not
pay compensation to the dancers; rather, the club charged the
dancers a "house fee" when they arrived for their shifts. Dancers
were expected to abide by a variety of rules and were fined for
noncompliance. The Defendants required dancers to share their tips
with others who were not eligible to earn tips, such as DJs,
managers, and bouncers.
Mary Embry worked as an exotic dancer at Big Earl's from October
2017 through July 2018.
4745 Second and Vaunetta Washington are an adult entertainment
club.[CC]
A-1 ROOFING: Celebrity Smiles Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-1 Roofing Company.
The case is styled as Celebrity Smiles Westmont, Pllc, individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons
and entities v. A-1 Roofing Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-05061 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
A-1 Roofing specializes in residential and commercial Colorado
roofing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Donald Coleman, Esq.
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com
nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Shepherd Balks at Freezing of Prime Membership
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SHEPHERD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 706075/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), alleges unfair and deceptive trade
practices concerning the sale of Amazon Prime membership, which
Amazon halted during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated individuals and entities, who purchased an
Amazon Prime membership for free and fast shipping services, during
the period between March 17, 2020, and the date of the final
disposition of this action.
In March 2020, online purchasing and shipping demand surged as a
result of people staying home due to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders
and governmental regulations and orders throughout the country
shutting down brick and mortar businesses other than grocery and
pharmacy stores. On March 17, 2020, the Defendant halted its Prime
Shipping service by sending a notice to all manufacturers and third
party sellers that they could no longer ship most products to
Amazon's distribution centers because it was "temporarily
prioritizing household staples, medical supplies, and other
high-demand products coming into our fulfillment centers so that we
can more quickly receive, restock, and deliver these products to
customers."
The Plaintiff contends that he was damaged by the Defendant's
unfair actions as he was not able to use the free and fast shipping
service that he paid for and would have not purchased Amazon Prime
membership if he knew that Amazon could freeze the service to
concentrate on its grocery and pharmacy business and not provide
him any credit for the paused service.
According to the complaint, in selling Amazon Prime shipping
services, Defendant fails to: 1) adequately disclose to the public
and customers, prior to the purchase of Amazon Prime, that Amazon
may suspend its free and fast shipping at any time and for whatever
reason it chooses; 2) adequately disclose to the public and
customers, prior to the purchase of Amazon Prime, that Amazon may
suspend its free and fast shipping so that it can concentrate on
higher volume and/or higher margin customers and/or orders when it
chooses to do so; and 3) adequately disclose to the public and
customers, prior to the purchase of Amazon Prime, that Amazon may
suspend its free and fast shipping so that it can compete against
other companies, including grocery and pharmacy delivery
companies.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, seek 1) monetary damages fully compensating all
individuals and entities for the pro-rata purchase price of Amazon
Prime while fast and free shipping was suspended; 2) injunctive
relief requiring Amazon to stop selling Amazon Prime membership
until corrective disclosures are made; 3) attorney's fees and costs
for the prosecution of this action and any value obtained for the
public or absent class members; and 4) such other relief as the
court deems necessary and appropriate.
Amazon.com, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in
Seattle, Washington. The Company is one of the largest online
retailers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Kelly, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY
244 5th Avenue, Suit K-278
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 920-5042
E-mail: jkelly@jckellylaw.com
AMERICAN BULLION: Sosa Sues in New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bullion,
Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. American Bullion, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-06980 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Bullion Inc. specializes in converting paper-backed IRA or
former 401(k) retirement plans into physical precious metals, such
as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on August 20, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio against American Electric Power
Company, Inc. (NYSE: AEP). The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is November 2, 2016 through
July 24, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-american-electric-power-company-inc/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all American
Electric Power Company, Inc. shareholders who purchased common
stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the
Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than
October 19, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. [GN]
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP" or
the "Company") (NYSE: AEP) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of AEP between November 2, 2016 and July
24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for AEP investors under the federal securities
laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose tha: (1) the Company covertly
participated in the "the largest public corruption case in Ohio
history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to
Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians
to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefitted the Company and its
coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a
massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in
opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing
substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front
companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4) the
Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative
efforts were materially false and misleading; (6) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the
Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the
benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, it
sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers'
interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge
on its customers' bills; and (11) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of AEP during
the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 19,
2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Defence Faces Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Ebsary, writing for Katherine Times, reports that as legal
action progresses against the Australian Defence Force and its use
of now-restricted firefighting foam at Bandiana, Wodonga residents
are becoming increasingly concerned about the health impacts.
Shine Lawyers will allege that from the 1970s to the early 2000s,
the Commonwealth failed to adequately capture and clean up aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF), which contains chemicals that persist in
the environment and are "potentially causative of adverse health
effects".
Similar legal action has resulted in a $212.5 million settlement
for residents in Katherine, Williamtown and Oakey.
The class action is on behalf of people in Wodonga who owned
property within the investigation area on October 1, 2016, when
Defence first announced testing for PFAS.
After succeeding with the Katherine and Oakey class actions, Shine
Lawyers is now taking class actions including Darwin, Bullsbrook,
Edinburgh, Richmond, Townsville and Wagga Wagga.
It is not seeking personal injury claims, but that hasn't stopped
residents asking questions about health implications.
Gloria Newton read about apparent cancer clusters in places like
Williamtown, after receiving one of 4,800 notices that Shine
Lawyers sent at the end of July.
"I didn't know who else had gotten the letter, and then I found out
Heather had got it. Then we started researching," she said.
Her neighbour, Heather Watts, remembers the fence designating
Defence land used to be just up from her house on the other side of
Beechworth Road, where White Box Rise is now.
The land was divested by Defence and sold in 2005.
"I used to walk over to the kangaroos, and there was a dirt road .
. . I used to walk up there everyday with the dog," she said.
"One particular day, I was standing up there looking down, and
there was this old car in the middle of a field.
"I sat down and watched, and there was all Army running around, and
they blew the car up. They had the fire truck there then.
"They say in the Bandiana investigation that it's [PFAS] at low
levels, and is below what is unacceptable -- well, of course
they're going to say that.
"It's cumulative in humans - we grew our own veggies in the soil,
and all the rest of it."
In Allambie Crescent, there has been cancer in 11 out of 17
residences.
Within a 300-metre radius, there have been a further 25 diagnoses
of a wide range of cancers.
In some properties there have been two diagnoses; Bill Nicholls and
his wife, who live on one side of Ms Watts, have both had cancer.
"I'd never thought about it [the high rates of cancer]," Mr.
Nicholls said.
"What I always worried about was the trees were always dying, for
no apparent reason. I had the gas people out - I thought it might
have been a gas leak.
"They said there's nothing there, it's probably something in the
ground."
Mrs. Newton, who has lived two doors up from Mr. Nicholls since
1989, lost her husband in 2015.
"My husband was a train driver, and they said he was one of the
fittest men in the railways, he never got sick," she said.
"Well all of a sudden he did -- he had prostate cancer and he was
gone in five months," she said.
The group in Allambie are wanting to hear from others in Wodonga
who have noticed high incidence of cancer.
Make contact: email darwinnie@hotmail.com or
ellen.ebsary@austcommunitymedia.com.au
Investigation looking at human health overdue
Consultants in 2018 said PFAS have likely moved off-base "in the
surface water down Jack in the Box Creek towards Wodonga Creek, and
via an unnamed creek towards the Kiewa River".
All 14 surface water samples taken along Jack in the Box Creek
exceeded PFAS freshwater guidelines.
Ten surface water samples from along the creek were above drinking
or recreational water guidelines; the highest being 5.1 micrograms
per litre, from near Jack Perry Reserve.
The family home of Nicole Beach abuts Arthur Dunstan Park and Jack
in the Box Creek, and is a couple hundred metres from where
groundwater was found to contain 0.232 ug/L of PFHHxS+PFOS.
Ms. Beach grew up playing in the park and eating home-grown
vegetables after her parents moved to Warsaw Crescent in 1972.
She has had ovarian cancer, her father died of stomach cancer in
2018, her brother is battling kidney cancer, and another sibling is
getting treatment for an autoimmune disease.
"I saw something on Facebook -- that's when I first became aware of
it," Ms Beach said.
"I rang my mum and said 'Mum have you seen this?' . . . the house
was right in the middle of the map.
"The land damages didn't bother me so much, what bothered me was
the fact that we had so many people who I knew in the street who
had died of or have had some form of cancer."
There are 14 cases of cancer that she knows of.
The likelihood of PFAS "accumulating in the food people are either
growing or catching" was the subject of a risk assessment, that
Defence originally said would be released in 2019 and is yet to be
published.
When Defence held community consultation in September 2018,
representatives stressed that unacceptable PFAS levels had not been
found in drinking water supplies, and that it remained safe to swim
in waterways.
Nonetheless, high levels of the chemical remained on the base in
2017 despite AFFF being phased out 10 to 20 years earlier.
Approximately 560 litres of AFFF were used per year at just one
site where fire training was conducted at South Bandiana, where
soil tested 12 times higher than open space guidelines (13.3
milligrams per kilogram, compared to 1 mg/kg).
A sample of groundwater from the current fire station contained 118
ug/L of PFAS, which was measured against recreational water
(0.7ug/L) and drinking water (0.07 ug/L) guidelines and compares to
the screening level for highly disturbed waterways of 2 ug/L.
Consultants made note of "a potential disposal ground" of drums at
the base of Bear's Hill and patches where grass was not growing in
a location where fire extinguishers were emptied.
What is PFAS? The 'forever chemicals' of concern
The federal government's position is that PFAS, which have been
found in polar regions and are in all people due to their presence
in household products, have not been proven to have a "large
impact" on human health.
But a recent senate inquiry has recommended the government review
its health advice.
Concerns about the impacts of PFAS "have particularly arisen due to
their stable chemical structure and ability to move through the
environment".
The European Union has recently introduced measures to regulate the
production and use of PFOA due to the "unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment" posed by the chemicals, the senate
inquiry stated.
The National Toxics Network told the inquiry: "PFAS chemicals
cannot and do not break down.
"While the focus has been primarily on PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS, these
represent only three of the estimated 4730 PFAS chemicals in use
today.
"Information on toxic effects and environmental fate exists for
only a handful."
The United States United States Environmental Protection Agency
provides the following advice to the public:
"The most consistent findings from human epidemiology studies are
increased cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more
limited findings related to infant birth weights, effects on the
immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption
(for PFOS)".
While maintaining "there is no current evidence that suggests an
increase in overall cancer risk", the Australian government does
set guidelines for acceptable exposure.
An Australian National University study is examining the health
impacts in Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine.
Communities 'have right to ask questions'
In the Williamtown red zone, Lindsay Clout is trying to learn what
clean-up has been done.
"The noise over the last three or four moths has been surrounding
the class action," he said.
"At the moment, my focus is that we've still got a red line around
us and that needs to be dealt with.
"Once that starts shrinking, which I'm quite confident it will, I
think people will feel very confident we're on the winning
straight."
On raising health concerns, Mr. Clout said he had been accused by
many along the way of "making trouble", but Australian researchers
were "moving closer and closer to establishing clear links".
"It's a really difficult road to tred, when you highlight the
dangers of this problem and create angst," he said.
"Our view had always been 'let's put this on the table' . . . . the
opposition are benefiting from the silence.
"We needed to know what the human health impacts were from
exposure, and that is well underway.
"My analogy of it, is it's a bit like smoking nicotine, some people
get away with it forever, and some people get issues from serving
behind the bar.
"In saying that, the background levels in the country are around 15
to 17 nanograms per millilitre, so if you've got 50, 70 or 90,
which are common numbers in contamination zones, you've got every
right to ask 'what's going on?'"
Mr. Clout, who leads the National Coalition Against PFAS, said
personal injury legal action was yet to be tested in Australia.
"Our legal people didn't want to go there three or four years ago,
but now the talk is it's not too far way," he said.
Wodonga residents issued notices have until September 30 to opt out
of the class action, and those who think they otherwise may be
eligible can call 1800 066 173.
For Ms. Beach, who has supported her mother to register, the most
important thing is raising awareness.
"In the end, they'll [the government] be looking at the dollars,
but the dollars really don't matter," she said.
"I think of the soldiers who were in close contact with this
chemical.
"No money is going to bring my Dad back, or be able to help me, but
we could stop it now."
Ms. Watts accepts it will take much to prove links between PFAS
contamination from the Bandiana Military Area and cancer in her
street.
But she also knows the testing done so far is only a snapshot of
the current time, and does not account for decades of chemicals
leaching off the base, that potentially resulted in drinking water
being impacted.
"They'll say it's [cancer] in family history, but it certainly
wasn't in our family," Ms Watts said.
"I lost my daughter Kelsey to ovarian cancer.
"When I found out there were four ovarian cancers within 40 metres
of our house, I thought, 'How can that be?'
"What we used to say when something like this came up, was 'It must
be in the water'."
Defence did not answer what steps had been taken to clean up PFAS
on and off the Bandiana base, and whether it could be ruled out
that PFAS impacted drinking water at any time during the 40 years
AFFF was in use.
Read their response in full:
Defence is committed to keeping the community surrounding the
Bandiana Military Area updated on the findings and progress of the
PFAS environmental investigation. Defence directly engages with
property owners to discuss the results of sampling and encourages
community members to register for the investigation stakeholder
list to receive periodic email updates.
Defence has completed a Detailed Site Investigation at Bandiana
which identified limited pathways for people to be exposed to PFAS,
including consumption of home-grown produce (red meat, fruit,
vegetables and eggs), consumption of fish from local waterways, and
recreational use of local waterways. As a precaution, Defence is
undertaking a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment to
further consider these exposure pathways and assess the level of
exposure risk. Defence expects to complete the Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment by the end of the year, however,
completion dates are subject to change due to the detailed nature
of the investigations and the need for comprehensive reviews.
Defence's PFAS environmental investigations timelines are not
impacted by class actions.
Defence is using the findings of the Investigation to develop a
PFAS Management Area Plan, which will assess if measures are
required to manage and reduce the risks of PFAS exposure. It will
also outline the sampling program to monitor and track PFAS
contamination over the coming years. The PFAS Management Area Plan
is expected to be finalised in conjunction with the Human Health
and Ecological Risk Assessment. When the Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment and PFAS Management Area Plan are
complete, Defence will publish the findings on the PFAS website and
provide an update to the community. Details of the update will be
advertised closer to the date.
The Investigation did not identify any potential exposure risks
associated with drinking water sources. On 17 September 2018, North
East Water issued a media release to confirm that the Wodonga
drinking water supply is safe to drink. This advice is based on the
results of sampling undertaken by North East Water in consultation
with the Department of Health. Sampling showed no levels of
concern, with PFAS detections well below the Australian Drinking
Water Guidelines. North East Water conducts routine sampling for
PFAS in Wodonga, and publishes these results on their website.
Defence is not a health authority and, as such, relies on guidance
and advice from relevant health authorities, including Victorian
government agencies. Defence has shared the results of all sampling
conducted, as well as investigation reports, with these Victorian
agencies, who are able to review and assess this information to
determine if precautionary advice is required.
The Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) has released
guidance statements to help assess public health risks when PFAS
have been released into the environment. In July 2019, the
statements were updated to reflect the most current evidence
relating to PFAS.
The Australian Government's Expert Health Panel for PFAS found
that, although the scientific evidence in humans is limited,
reviews and scientific research to date have provided fairly
consistent reports of an association with several health effects.
The health effects reported in these associations are generally
small and within normal ranges for the whole population. There is
also limited to no evidence of human disease or other clinically
significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure at this time. Further
information on the guidance statements and health can be found at:
https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-pfas-expertpanel.htm.
Commencing in November 2016, the Australian Government offered a
free blood test for PFAS to people who live or work, or who have
lived or worked, in the Williamtown and Oakey investigation areas
and who have potentially been exposed to PFAS. In March 2018, this
program was extended to include the RAAF Base Tindal Investigation
Area as part of a Government support package to the Katherine
community. On June 30 2019, the Australian Government's PFAS
Voluntary Blood Testing Program concluded. More information about
this program is available at:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-pfas-bloodtesting.htm
[GN]
AUSTRALIA: Spends AU$34 Million on Robo-Debt Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Asha Barbaschow, writing for ZDNet, reports that tender documents
have revealed the amount the government has spent on legal advice
and related services, which according to the federal opposition is
for Centrelink's troubled Online Compliance Intervention (OCI)
initiative, colloquially known as robo-debt.
Labor said the Department of Social Services and Services Australia
have awarded more than AU$34 million in contracts for legal
services since robo-debt litigation "ramped up" in Federal Court.
"The full cost of the Morrison government's pig-headedness over the
illegality of robo-debt has been laid bare," a statement from
former Labor leader Bill Shorten said. "Australian taxpayers are
footing a whopping AU$34,000,000 legal bill for advice and services
that would have been better sought before the questionable scheme
was unleashed."
A spokesperson for the department told ZDNet the contracts do not
relate to any spend on legal services related to the OCI program or
the class action. Instead, the spokesperson said they were awarded
for "general corporate legal responsibilities".
The Department of Human Services, now Services Australia, kicked
off the data-matching program of work in 2016, which saw the
automatic issuing of debt notices to those in receipt of welfare
payments through the Centrelink scheme. Centrelink's OCI program,
from 1 July 2016 through 31 August 2019, saw 1,159,662 assessments
be initiated using the automated data-matching technique.
Shorten, who is now the Shadow Minister for Government Services,
accused the government of still covering up robo-debt's origins and
said it was "dragging its heels" over the imminent class action.
He said the government "got it backwards", paying lawyers after the
fact.
"This is great news for lawyers who want swimming pools but
terrible news for the Australian taxpayer," Shorten continued. "We
are being stonewalled over the origins of this disaster and it's
not entirely clear whether legal advice was sort at all before this
extortion was let loose on innocent Australians."
Shorten said the "illegal scam" never would have happened if
lawyers were consulted in the first place.
In November, Gordon Legal launched a robo-debt class action on
behalf of five representative applicants and hundreds of thousands
of people who are included in the case as group members.
The essence of the applicants' case is that debts raised by
robo-debt are unlawful, and all recipients should be compensated by
the federal government.
The Department of Social Services, the respondent in the class
action, spent over AU$5.1 million on legal services in the 12
months since the robo-debt test case was launched by Victoria Legal
Aid, Shorten said.
Services Australia, meanwhile, has contracted AU$29 million in
legal services over the same period, he added.
On Aug. 14, a case management hearing was held, with concerns over
the viability of sticking to the September 21 timeline for the
class action raised.
"It is looking like the case will not be ready," Justice Bernard
Murphy declared. "We're getting perilously close to the trial . . .
for the moment, let's push forward."
During an interlocutory hearing on the same day, counsel for the
Commonwealth claimed privilege over 90 documents sought by the
applicants. The ongoing discovery process could also delay the
kick-off of legal action. Shorten said this could come at a
"further AU$2.8 million slug to taxpayers for each month that the
hearing is delayed".
Shorten also renewed his party's calls for a Royal Commission into
robo-debt, which followed the Greens asking for the same earlier
that month. [GN]
AXA EQUITABLE: Appeals Ruling in Brach Family Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from
the District Court's Opinion and Order dated August 13, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v.
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 16-cv-740, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 6,
2020, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company ("Equitable Life")
continues to defend itself against a class action suit entitled,
Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This
lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners
of universal life ("UL") policies subject to Equitable Life's COI
rate increase.
In early 2016, Equitable Life raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of US$1 million and
above.
A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.
The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek; (a)
compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest;
(b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty
in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative
class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection
with their statutory claims.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 20-2848, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent Brach Family Foundation, Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Steven Gerald Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: ssklaver@SusmanGodfrey.com
Defendant-Petitioner AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is
represented by:
Noah A. Levine, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8875
E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Abdelaziz Appeals Ruling to Pennsylvania Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mourad Abdelaziz filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Abdelaziz, M. v. B. Braun Medical,
Case No. 191201504, in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for damages resulting from its
dangerous and reckless emission of Ethylene Oxide.
Ethylene Oxide is a powerful cancer-causing gas. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology
Program, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) all classify Ethylene Oxide as
a known human carcinogen.
The Defendant's manufacturing facility in Allentown utilizes large
volumes of Ethylene Oxide gas to sterilize medical equipment. This
toxic gas is then released into the atmosphere by the Defendant in
both controlled and uncontrolled releases.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
lived within the vicinity of the Defendant's Allentown plant, and
have been exposed to large volumes of toxic, cancer-causing
Ethylene Oxide gas. Although Ethylene Oxide is odorless and
colorless, and the Plaintiff and Class Members can neither see nor
smell the gas, it is in the air they breathe and all around them.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have been inhaling and consuming
large amounts of Ethylene Oxide when they brush their teeth, pet
their dogs, talk with their children about their day at school, and
throughout their daily lives.
As a result of their exposure to Ethylene Oxide emitted by the
Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class Members acquired some of the
highest cancer risks in the United States, says the complaint. The
Defendant's irresponsible and reckless conduct, and the pollution
resulting therefrom, has necessitated that the Plaintiff and Class
Members obtain medical monitoring to mitigate their increased risk
of developing cancer, including screening, monitoring, and checking
to detect any abnormalities that may be indicative of cancer, and
to ensure that latent disease processes can be immediately
identified and aggressively treated.
The appellate case is captioned as Abdelaziz, M. v. B. Braun
Medical, Case No. 1550 EDA 2020, in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Mourad Abdelaziz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq.
Hannah Jeanne Molitoris, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN P.C.
1800 Jfk Blvd., Ste. 1401
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 446-9795
Facsimile: (215) 446-9799
E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com
hmolitoris@forthepeople.com
- and -
Tudor Ion Farcas, Esq.
Adam Jorge Gomez, Esq.
M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
123 S Justison St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7092
E-mail: tfarcas@gelaw.com
agomez@gelaw.com
egraham@gelaw.com
Defendant-Appellee B. Braun Medical Inc. is represented by:
Neil Steven Witkes, Esq.
Nicole R. Moshang, Esq.
Diana Amaral Silva, Esq.
MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
401 City Ave., Ste. 901
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (484) 430-2314
E-mail: nwitkes@mankogold.com
nmoshang@mankogold.com
dsilva@mankogold.com
BAYER AG: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Aug. 16 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE:GEO)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT GEO:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8602&from=1
Class Period: February 27, 2020 - June 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially 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.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC PINK:BAYRY)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BAYRY:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form/?id=8602&from=1
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
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Pension Plan Participants Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Allen Phillips; Kevin
D. Murphy; Michael Egger, William Lofthouse, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-02402-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a class of similarly situated participants in
the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (Plan):
"all Plan participants (and their surviving spouses and
eligible beneficiaries) whose retirement benefits were or
will be terminated or whose benefit applications were or
will be denied, based on the claim that they had not or
would not be retired under the Plan because of their non-
Boilermaker Work for an Employer"; and
2. appointing themselves as class representatives and the firm
of Martin & Bonnett as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the class for violation of the
terms of the Plan, breach of fiduciary duties, violations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA) accrual of
benefits requirements, violations of ERISA's written plan and
disclosure requirements, and violations of ERISA's claims procedure
requirements.
The Defendants include Board of Trustees of the
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Scott Anderson,
Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; John
T. Fultz, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust; Lawrence J. McManamon, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith
National Pension Trust; Lyndal Turner, Trustee of the
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Mike Hidas, Trustee
of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Mark
Vandiver, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust; Boilermakers National Health & Welfare Plan; and Board of
Trustees of the Boilermakers National Health & Welfare Plan
Boilermaker Blacksmith provides employee benefits. The company
offers pension, retirement, health, and welfare funds.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rik N. Siro, Esq.
Eric W. Smith, Esq.
Athena M. Dickson, Esq.
Raymond A. Dake, Esq.
Ryan P. McEnaney, Esq.
SIRO SMITH DICKSON PC
1621 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: 816 471 4881
Facsimile: 816 471.4883
E-mail: rsiro@sirosmithdickson.com
esmith@sirosmithdickson.com
adickson@sirosmithdickson.com
rdake@sirosmithdickson.com
rmcenaney@sirosmithdickson.com
- and -
Susan Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Michael M. Licata, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: 602 240 6900
Facsimile: 602.240.2345
E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
mlicata@martinbonnett.com
BRASKEM SA: Faces Coutinho Securities Suit Over False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIO COUTINHO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BRASKEM S.A., ROBERTO LOPES PONTES SIMOES,
FERNANDO MUSA, and PEDRO VAN LANGENDONCK TEIXEIRA DE FREITAS, Case
No. 1:20-cv-11366 (D.N.J., Aug. 25, 2020), alleges violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Defendants'
issuance of materially false and misleading statements regarding
their business.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies when they filed an annual report on Form
20-F with Securities and Exchange Commission. Subsequently, Braskem
disclosed that the Company had been sued by local authorities in
northeastern Brazil in connection with Braskem's salt mining
operations, which caused more widespread geological damage in the
state of Alagoas, Brazil.
As a result of this news, Braskem's American depository share (ADS)
price declined. However, the Plaintiff contends, Braskem's
securities continued to trade at artificially inflated prices
because of the Defendants' continued misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the true scope and severity of the Company's
liability with respect to the geological event caused by its salt
mining operations.
The Plaintiff has acquired Braskem securities at artificially
inflated prices and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures. The Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages because of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, according to the complaint.
Braskem S.A. produces thermoplastic resins in the U.S. Roberto
Lopes Pontes Simoes has served as Braskem's Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) since January 1, 2020. Fernando Musa has served as Braskem's
CEO before the start of the Class Period until January 1, 2020.
Pedro Van Langendonck Teixeira de Freitas has served as Braskem's
Chief Financial Officer at all relevant times.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (917) 463-1044
Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Barrett Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BARRETT; and JEFFREY PETERSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION, INC.; and
VEHICLE PROTECTION SPECIALISTS LLC, Case 1:20-cv-11487 (D. Mass.,
Aug. 6, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
Carguard Administration, Inc., provides comprehensive vehicle
protection plans to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
188 Oaks Road
Framingham, MA 01701
E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Settlement in Kautsman Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKOLAY KAUTSMAN and OLGA KOFANOVA, and each on behalf
of himself/herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Corporation, et
al., Defendants, Case No. C16-1940-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted (i) the parties' joint motion for
final approval of their class action settlement, and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs.
The parties got preliminary approval of their class settlement in
January 2020. A settlement class has been certified, defined as:
All persons who own or owned real property in the state of
Washington subject to a deed of trust or mortgage serviced or
held
by CMS who within the applicable statute of limitations, had
their
property entered and rekeyed by CMS prior to CMS completing Final
Disposition of the property. For the purposes of that
definition,
Final Disposition includes foreclosure as well as other
disposition events regarding the property, including deed in
lieu,
short sale, paid in full, or charge off.
Settlement Services Inc. was appointed as the claims administrator.
On further review, the Court finds and concludes that the
settlement is in the best interest of the class and is fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to all class members. The Court also
finds that the proposed award of attorney fees, costs, and service
awards is reasonable, with particular emphasis on the favorable
award obtained for the class, the amount of time and effort
expended by the Plaintiffs' counsel and the named Plaintiffs in the
litigation, and the complexity of the issues raised.
Accordingly, Coughenour granted final approval of the Class
Settlement and approved Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees,
costs, and service awards. The Defendants are authorized to
distribute benefits to the settlement class members as provided for
in the settlement agreement.
The Judge approved Home Base of Seattle and Family Promise of
Spokane as the cy pres recipients. To the extent that checks sent
to the settlement class members cannot be delivered or are not
cashed, the remainder of the damages fund up to a 70% cap will be
paid in equal amounts to the cy pres recipients. The remaining 30%
of the damages fund, if any, will revert to the Defendants.
The Judge also approved (i) an award of attorney fees to the
Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $682,500; (ii) an award of
$6,397.29 to the Plaintiffs' counsel for reimbursement of
reasonable litigation costs; (iii) payment of the claims
administrator's fees and costs of up to $15,750, to be paid to the
claims administrator solely from the common fund by the deadline
specified in the settlement agreement; and (iv) a service award of
$15,000 each to named Plaintiffs Nikolay Kautsman and Olga
Kofanova.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/G92Yfm from Leagle.com.
CHARTER NEX: $140,000 Deal in Miller Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER NEX
FILMS - DELAWARE, OH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-1341 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
granted the parties' (i) Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement and its supporting documents, and (ii) Amended Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement.
Plaintiffs Miller's and Seth Record's Dec. 21, 2018 Amended
Complaint asserts a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Procedure 23 and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants Charter Nex Films - Delaware, Ohio, Inc., Charter Nex
Films, Inc. and Charter Nex Holding Co. failed to pay their
employees for overtime hours worked. Defendants deny all claims.
Defendant Charter Nex Holding Co. has been dismissed from the
action.
The Court granted the Joint Motion and Stipulation of Conditional
Certification on Feb. 4, 2019. The order conditionally certified
the following classes under Section 216(b) of the FLSA:
i. All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Charter
NEX Films, Inc., Charter NEX Films - Delaware, OH, Inc., or
Charter NEX Films - Bloomer, WI, Inc., who received a base
hourly wage and shift differentials, shift premiums, and/or
nondiscretionary bonus payments during any workweek that they
worked over 40 hours beginning Dec. 21, 2015 and continuing
through the date of final disposition of this case (the
Additional Remuneration Subclass).
ii. All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Charter
NEX Films, Inc., Charter NEX Films - Delaware, OH, Inc., or
Charter NEX Films - Bloomer, WI, Inc., who since Dec. 21,
2015
have worked at least 40 hours in any workweek and were
required to track their hours worked with the clock-in and
clock-out time tracking system (the Rounding Subclass).
In addition, the Court approved the Notice of Collective Action
Lawsuit and the Consent to Join form. Both were mailed and the
notice period ended on Nov. 25, 2019.
The parties' seven-month long settlement discussions produced the
proposed Amended Settlement Agreement and Release, and the instant
motions. Under the Agreement, the parties stipulated to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 class certification of the following "Ohio Settlement
Class":
All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendants
working in Ohio who worked over 40 hours in any workweek from
Dec. 21, 2015, through Jan. 1, 2019, who (i) received a base
hourly wage and additional remuneration during any workweek that
they worked over 40 hours; or (ii) were required to track their
hours worked with the clock-in and clock-out time tracking
system.
The Agreement defines the "FLSA Settlement Class" to include:
All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendants
who (i) worked over 40 hours in any workweek from Dec. 21, 2015
through Jan. 1, 2019, (ii) who received a base hourly wage and
additional remuneration during any workweek that they worked
over
40 hours, or were required to track their hours worked with the
clock-in and clock-out time tracking system, and (iii) who
timely
submitted an opt-in consent form, asserting their FLSA
claim(s).
The Agreement calls for the Defendants to pay a total settlement
amount of $140,000, which includes the following distribution:
(1) $79,441 for settlement award payments to the class and
collective members;
(2) $6,000 for service payments, with $3,000 going to each named
Plaintiff;
(3) $46,500 for payment of the Class Counsel's fees; and
(4) $8,059 for payment of the class counsel's costs.
The parties state that the $79,441 sum, which is to be distributed
on a pro rata basis, exceeds the Plaintiffs' maximum recovery for
all damages except for the contested rounding claim. The
Plaintiffs are conceding any damages for that count as part of the
settlement.
The parties agree on three separate notices being mailed to the
respective class members. Those include the "FLSA Only Notice,"
the "Hybrid Notice," and the "Rule 23 Only Notice." The differing
Notices are required because some class members have only FLSA
claims, some have only state claims, and the remainder have both.
Each Notice details the reason for the notice, provides an
explanation for the lawsuit and includes the settlement class
member's pro rata share. The Notices detail how the Agreement was
reached and the benefits and drawbacks of the Agreement. They
explain the opt-out procedure and how to object to the Agreement.
Lastly, the Notices provide that cashing the check and/or
opting-out will result in releasing any and all claims against the
Defendants.
The parties now seek preliminary approval of the Agreement.
Upon deliberation, Judge Morrison grants the parties' motions for
preliminary approval of the Agreement. Brandon Miller and Seth
Recore are appointed as the Class Representatives of the FLSA
Settlement Class, and Brandon Miller as the Class Representative of
the Ohio Settlement Class. Attorneys Matthew Coffman and Peter
Contreras and their respective firms are appointed as the Class
Counsel for the Rule 23 Ohio Settlement Class pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(g). CPT Group, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement
Administrator.
The three Settlement Notices will be corrected to indicate that the
final approval hearing will take place in courtroom 132, not room
167 and to state that objections will be filed with the Clerk's
office, not mailed to chambers. The Judge approved the form and
substance of the three Settlement Notices attached to the Agreement
as Exhibits A-C with the noted alterations. The Judge further
approved the distribution of the three Settlement Notices via
First-Class United States Mail as valid, due, and sufficient notice
to Settlement Class Members, pursuant to Section 216(b) and FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
The Judge approved the settlement procedure and timeline set forth
in the Agreement.
A final approval hearing on the matter was originally set for Aug.
17, 2020 to determine the overall fairness of the settlement and to
determine the amount of attorney's fees and costs to the Class
Counsel and service awards. That hearing has been reset to Sept.
8, 2020.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/NuWpf6 from Leagle.com.
CHRISTIAN SIRIANO: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christian Siriano
Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Christian Siriano
Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06949 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Christian Siriano Holdings LLC is located in the city of New York
and is part of the Women's Clothing Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CINCINNATI CAPITAL: Class & Merits Discovery in Lee Suit Combined
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Owen V. Lee, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cincinnati Capital
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-12133 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean
F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion
seeking to combine class and merits discovery, and (ii) denied the
Defendant's cross-motion asking the Court to bifurcate discovery.
Plaintiffs Owen V. Lee and Heather Lee filed the putative class
action, on their own behalf, against Defendant Cincinnati Capital
in state court. On July 22, 2019, the Defendants removed the
action to federal court, based upon both diversity jurisdiction and
federal-question jurisdiction.
On Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a "First Amended Class
Action Complaint" naming the following two Defendants: (1) Joseph
Engelhart, an individual; and (2) Cincinnati Capital, an Ohio
corporation. It asserts the following claims: (1) Violation of the
the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act ("SMLA") (Count I); (2) Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution (Count II); (3) Violation of
Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA") (Count III); and (4) Violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") (Count IV).
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Cincinnati Capital is an Ohio
Corporation, and Defendant Engelhart is the CEO, owner, and agent
of Cincinnati Capital. The complaint is against the Defendants for
violations of the SMLA, the TILA, the RESPA, and for Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution under the laws of the State of Michigan,
based upon the unjust collection and retention of payments, to
which they were not entitled, made by the Lees and the Putative
Class.
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the SMLA when they
conducted business with the Lees and the Putative Class despite
being unlicensed under SMLA. The Defendants' collection of
principal and interest mortgage payments without a license gives
rise to a claim for Unjust Enrichment/Restitution as the law
prohibits them from collecting such payments. Further, they
violated various provisions of TILA and RESPA by failing to make
certain disclosures or otherwise failing to provide certain
information to the Lees and the Putative Class.
The Lees own their home, real property located at 49363 Parkshore
Court in Northville, Michigan. On Nov. 4, 2005, the Lees secured a
home equity line of credit ("HELOC") in the amount of $525,000 from
Main Street Bank. Main Street Bank was a full service financial
institution that was organized and existed under the laws of the
State of Michigan. To secure repayment of the HELOC, the Lees
granted Main Street Bank a second mortgage on the Subject Property,
behind in priority to their primary mortgage, which was recorded
with Wayne County register of deeds.
On Oct. 10, 2008, Main Street Bank was closed by the Michigan
Office of Financial & Insurance Services and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. ("FDIC") was named receiver. Sometime after it was
appointed receiver, the FDIC sold to Cincinnati Capital a portfolio
of loans and mortgages originated and owned by Main Street Bank.
Among the Loans was the Lees' HELOC and Second Mortgage. In
addition to the Lees' HELOC and Second Mortgage, the Loans included
229 similar loans that had been originated and owned by Main Street
Bank and that were secured by real property located in the State of
Michigan.
On the date of purchase, the Loans had a book value of
$13,632.991.90, for which Cincinnati Capital paid a total purchase
price of $1,554,161.08 or 11.4 cents per dollar of the book value.
Upon information and belief, the FDIC, as receiver, transferred to
Cincinnati Capital all rights to collect and enforce the terms of
these 230 Loans.
On June 18, 2009, an Assignment of Mortgage was recorded with the
Wayne County Register of Deeds wherein the FDIC assigned the Second
Mortgage to Cincinnati Capital. Engelhart authorized the
Assignment as CEO of Cincinnati Capital.
At various times after the HELOC and Second Mortgage was sold to
Cincinnati Capital, the Lees attempted to contact the Defendants
regarding, among other things, the financial hardship they were
experiencing in relation to the HELOC and Second Mortgage, copies
of various documents related to the loan, the loan history, and
other related information. Most of these requests went unanswered
with Cincinnati Capital responding, only in October 2015 and May
2019, with parts of the information requested. Among other things,
the Defendants never provided proof that Cincinnati Capital
acquired the HELOC and Second Mortgage, notice of the basis of any
change to the interest rate of the loan, and calculations of the
payment, adequate periodic statements, or required disclosures.
Based upon the dealings between the Lees and the Defendants, upon
information and belief, the Defendants failed to provide requested
or required information or notices to the other 229 mortgage
holders.
Both the Defendants filed motions to dismiss. In an Opinion and
Order issued on Jan. 16, 2020, the Court dismissed the claims
against Engelhart, leaving Cincinnati Capital as the only remaining
Defendant in the case. As to the claims against Cincinnati
Capital, the Plaintiffs concede that they cannot assert any claims
against it in the action that would pre-date the date that Main
Street Bank was placed into FDIC receivership (such as a claim
involving origination of a loan).
At the Scheduling Conference, the parties disagreed as to whether
discovery in the case should be bifurcated. Thereafter, the Court
issued an order instructing the parties to brief their respective
positions and offer their own proposed Scheduling Orde. The
parties have since filed those submissions.
In addition, the Plaintiffs filed a "Motion For Leave To
Clarify/Amend First Amended Class Action Complaint." The Court
recently granted that motion, over the Defendant's opposition,
allowing the Plaintiffs to amend a single paragraph of their
complaint. That Opinion and Order was issued on July 8, 2020, thus
the amended complaint will be filed in the near future.
The Plaintiffs' motion asks the Court to combine class
certification and merits discovery in the case and enter their
proposed scheduling order. They proposed scheduling order would
combine class and merits discovery, and would have a provision
wherein the parties would first discuss any problems that may arise
and then have the Court address them if necessary.
The Defendant, on the other hand, asks the Court to bifurcate
discovery and enter its proposed scheduling order and filed a
motion asking the Court to do that. It claims that doing so will
be more efficient.
Its proposed scheduling order would provide for only limited class
discovery, limited to the following categories of information: (1)
identification of the financial instruments that Cincinnati
acquired from Main Street Bank in 2009, (2) identification of the
repayment histories for those financial instruments, (3)
identification of the account holders for those financial
instruments who have made disclosure requests substantially similar
to those the Lees allege give rise to their federal statutory
claims; and (4) the Lees' status as potential class representatives
under Rule 23. Under the Defendant's proposed order, class
certification would then be briefed by the parties and decided by
the Court before any further discovery would take place.
Having reviewed the parties' competing positions, Judge Cox will
follow the Plaintiffs' suggested approach. As the Plaintiffs note,
even as a class action, the case is fairly simple and
straightforward. Much of the discovery needed will be available
electronically and will relate to the loans and communications
between the parties. And, in light of the Supreme Court's decision
in Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, courts are understandably
reluctant to bifurcate discovery.
The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs' point that bifurcation
would inevitably lead to disputes over what is class discovery and
what is merits discovery is well taken.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion seeking to
combine class and merits discovery, and denied the Defendant's
cross-motion seeking to bifurcate discovery. An Initial Scheduling
Order forthwith will be issued.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 17, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/KsAjW0 from Leagle.com.
CLASSIC ACCESSORIES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Accessories,
LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Classic Accessories, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06950 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Classic Accessories designs, manufactures and sells textile
products that cover, protect and organize outdoor gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Young Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Young, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-01741 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought for damages arising from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a personal debt through the use of
her Capital One credit card. According to the Defendant, the debt
was charged off with a balance of $343.37. On August 17, 2020, in
attempt to collect said debt, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an
initial dunning letter with the following pieces of information:
Balance Due At Charge-Off: $343.37; Interest Since Charge-Off:
$50.61; Other Charges Since Charge-Off: $109.29; Payments Made
Since Charge-Off: $0.00; Balance Due: $343.37.
According to the complaint, the letter at issue is deceptive,
misleading, and fails to portray the true amount of the debt. The
letter is clearly open to multiple interpretations as to the
balance owed. On the one hand, the letter appears to seek interest
and other charges by listing specific balance amounts within the
debt breakdown. This would increase the debt beyond that which was
allegedly owed at the time of charge off. On the other hand, the
letter seems to seek the same balance at the time the debt was
charged off. These conflicting interpretations are confusing to the
least sophisticated consumer. Notably, the fact that the balance
due appears to be the same balance due at the time of charge off
does not aid the consumer's understanding because the consumer is
more likely to disregard this and believe it is a typo given the
specific delineation of interest and other charges accruing.
The letter is also confusing because the letter does not clearly
explain whether interest or other charges are in fact accruing or
not, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that it would appear from
the letter that these fees are rising given their delineation and
specific accrual. However, interest and fees are not rising.
Therefore, the consumer is led into a false sense of urgency to pay
the debt to prevent the balance from rising. Therefore, the letter
violates the FDCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is both a natural person and a consumer.
The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neda Farah, Esq.
FARAH LAW, P.C.
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: 310-666-3786
Fax: 775-261-1726
Email: neda@nedafarahlaw.com
COLONY INSURANCE: Skillets Sues in Virginia Over Contract Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Skillets LLC d/b/a Skillets
Restaurant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Colony Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00678 (E.D.
Va., Aug. 27, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance
Contract.
Colony Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa Sarah Brook, Esq.
MICHIEHAMLETT PLLC
310 4th Street NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 951-7200
Fax: (434) 951-7253
Email: lbrook@michiehamlett.com
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Selane Products Seeks COVID Losses Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SELANE PRODUCTS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-07834
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's refusal to
cover the Plaintiff's loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit seeks damages to compensate the Plaintiff for the
Defendant's contractual breaches, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief: confirming that the Plaintiff's losses are
covered, prohibiting the Defendant from denying coverage for
losses, and requiring the Defendant to publicly correct
misstatements it made and its corporate affiliates regarding the
availability of insurance coverage for losses attributable to
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and associated actions and orders of civil
authorities.
The Plaintiff was forced to suspend its operations, and had the use
and functionality of its premises substantially impaired, due to
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, the subsequent actions and orders of state
and local civil authorities, guidance from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and the need to mitigate its losses and
damage. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to
suffer, substantial financial losses.
When the Plaintiff and other California small businesses turned to
the Defendant, their long-time commercial property and business
interruption insurer, the Plaintiff and the other insureds
reasonably expected the Defendant to afford coverage for their
financial losses under their CNA Connect business owners' insurance
policies. However, instead of honoring its promises to the
Plaintiff and other California small businesses, the Defendant has
wrongfully withheld the policy benefits that these businesses are
entitled to receive-and that they need to weather the circumstances
associated with the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and actions to "flatten
the curve," rebound from their financial losses, and continue
operating as productive members of California's economy.
According to the complaint, the Defendant and its corporate
affiliates have conspired in an improper attempt to dissuade
insured businesses from pursuing coverage for their losses. The
reprehensible tactics employed by the Defendant and its cohorts
have included the coordinated dissemination of misinformation,
including in public misstatements by the CEO of the Defendant's
corporate parent, designed to mislead California businesses and the
general public into thinking that CNA Connect business owners'
insurance policies do not cover financial losses attributable to
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and associated actions and orders of civil
authorities--when, in fact, the CNA Connect policies cover such
losses and do not conspicuously, plainly, clearly, and
unambiguously exclude coverage for such losses.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has improperly withheld
these benefits from Selane and the other Class Members on a
widespread, systematic, and uniform basis.
Plaintiff Selane Products has manufactured dental appliances for
California's residents, providing them with custom-made braces,
retainers, mouthguards, artificial teeth, dental crowns and
bridges, fillings, and other orthodontic appliances for more than
60 years.
Continental Casualty Company is an American insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk A. Pasich, Esq.
PASICH LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 313-7860
Facsimile: (424) 313-7890
E-mail: kpasich@pasichllp.com
- and -
Shaun H. Crosner, Esq.
Michael S. Gehrt, Esq.
Jacquelyn M. Mohr, Esq.
PASICH LLP
1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 690
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (424) 313-7860
Facsimile: (424) 313-7890
E-mail: scrosner@pasichllp.com
mgehrt@pasichllp.com
jmohr@pasichllp.com
- and -
Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
Jay L.T. Breakstone, Esq.
Harrison M. Biggs, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Telephone: (516) 723-4611
Facsimile: (516) 723-4711
E-mail: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com
jbreakstone@yourlawyer.com
hbiggs@yourlawyer.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Farr Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Sonya Farr, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05067 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
CROSSROADS COURIER: Williams Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Williams, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. CROSSROADS COURIER, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00691-HFS
(W.D. Mo., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and common law to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid time and overtime, improper
deductions, and compensatory and liquidated damages owed.
Despite the Defendant labeling its couriers "independent
contractors," the law looks to the economic reality of the
relationship and not the label placed on the workers, according to
the complaint. And here, the reality is that the Plaintiff and the
Class are employees under the law, and the Defendant, as their
employer, is required to ensure they are properly paid.
The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff for any time they spend
waiting to pick up packages, nor does it pay them for any time they
spend on administrative work, nor for wait time between deliveries,
or pulling product from the Defendant's warehouse for making
deliveries, according to the complaint. The Defendant also does not
pay the Plaintiff for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The
Defendant does not reimburse the Plaintiff for the expenses that
they incur performing courier services for the primary benefit of
the Defendant. The Defendant's systematic failures to reimburse
constitutes a "kickback" to the Defendant such that the wages it
pays the Plaintiff is not paid free and clear of all outstanding
obligations to the Defendant.
Plaintiff Dylan Williams was employed by the Defendant to provide
courier services (despite being misclassified as an independent
contractor) in July 2016 and remained employed through July 2019.
The Defendant is a provider of courier services across the state of
Missouri.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
REAVEY LAW LLC
Livestock Exchange Building
1600 Genessee, Suite 303
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (816) 474-6300
Fax: (816) 474-6302
Email: patrick@reaveylaw.com
kkoc@reaveylaw.com
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Seltz Suit Seeks Class Status
--------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN SELTZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD,
INC. and CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF WASHINGTON, DC, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-02092-BAH (D.C.), the Parties ask the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of, and authorizing
notice to collective action members:
"all individuals who were employed by Cushman & Wakefield
of Washington, D.C., Inc. or any other subsidiary of
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. as a salaried, exempt-classified
Junior Appraiser, Junior Associate, or Associate Appraiser
at any time from December 5, 2014 to the present";
2. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff's
Counsel and the third-party administrator with the names
and last known home addresses, email addresses and
telephone numbers for all potential Opt-in Plaintiffs. The
Defendants shall provide such information in a computer-
readable format, such as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In
addition, Defendants shall provide the last four digits of
the Social Security numbers for all potential Opt-in
Plaintiffs directly to the third-party administrator.;
3. directing the third-party administrator to transmit the
agreed Notice and Consent Forms via first class mail and
e-mail to all persons contained on the list; and
4. giving the Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs 90 days from the
date of the first mailing of the Notice and Consent Form
to return a signed Consent Form to the administrator or
the Plaintiff's Counsel.
Cushman & Wakefield is a global commercial real estate services
firm. The company's headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois.
Cushman & Wakefield is among the world's largest commercial real
estate services firms, with revenues of US$8.8 billion in
2019.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collectives
are:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 847-4400
E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
jms@outtengolden.com
daaron@outtengolden.com
mfrandsen@outtengolden.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
Attorneys for the Defendants Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. and Cushman
& Wakefield of Washington, DC, Inc., are:
Sadina Montani, Esq.
Thomas H. Petrides, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
1401 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 312-3320
Facsimile: (202) 312-3322
E-mail: smontani@vedderprice.com
tpetrides@vedderprice.com
EA SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Ultimate Team Loot Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Whitehead, writing for Legal Gambling, reports that EA
Sports, the company behind hit games like FIFA, Madden NFL 20 and
NBA Live 19 has been hit with a lawsuit filed in California by
Kevin Ramirez. The lawsuit is regarding the use of EA's "Ultimate
Team" loot boxes which are used in the company's blockbuster Madden
and FIFA franchises. Ramirez is pursuing damages of $5 million as
well as a jury trial.
Ramirez brought the case on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs on
August 13. The same law firm handled a similar class action lawsuit
against Apple in June for their use of loot boxes. The suit states
that EA's Ultimate Team Packs are predatory, targeting gamers and
luring them to gamble. The loot boxes are alleged to be a part of
EA's strategy to develop addictive behaviours in consumers to pad
their bottom line.
Players can purchase the Ultimate Team Packs with real money. They
then gain access to randomly selected prizes that are highly
valuable within the game. The state of California defines an
illegal gambling device as
"a machine, aperture, or device; something of value is given to
play; and the player may receive something of value by element of
chance."
Ramirez says that he has spent more than $600 on Ultimate Team
Packs since 2011, due to the numerous inducements of EA.
The lawsuit states that loot boxes are clearly in violation of
California law. Gamers use their gaming device to play their copy
of an EA sports game, where they are induced to pay real money to
open Ultimate Team Packs. The loot boxes used in these games
perfectly fit the definition of an illegal gambling device in
California, as their contents are subject to randomness.
LOOT BOXES CONSIDERED GAMBLING IN UK, BELGIUM
There is still no legal consensus in the US on the status of loot
boxes as gambling. This is one of the reasons why the lawsuit
includes references outside the US, where loot boxes have been
deemed as gambling, such as Belgium, where games are banned from
selling loot boxes, and the UK, where the country's Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport Committee advised the UK government to
consider loot boxes as gambling and ban their sale to children.
A number of prominent gaming companies have begun to regulate loot
boxes as a result of the controversies associated with them.
Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony will require the disclosure of loot
box odds for any games produced for their consoles -- the policy is
expected to take effect before the end of 2020. [GN]
EASTMAN KODAK: Johnson Fistel Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Aug. 16
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or "the Company") (NYSE: KODK) and
certain of its officers.
The class action is on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise, acquired Kodak securities between July 27,
2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until October 13, 2020, to apply to the Court to be appointed
as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and misleading statements as they
misrepresented and failed to disclose material information about
the Company's business and operations, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
defendants failed to disclose that the Company had granted several
insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options, immediately
prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received a
$765 million loan from the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation to produce drugs to treat COVID-19, which defendants
knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value
once the deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of
this material non-public information, Company insiders purchased
tens of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the
announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase once
news of the loan became public. As a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Kodak's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis
when made. As a result of this fraudulent scheme, defendants
artificially inflated the Company's stock price throughout the
Class Period and made investment decisions based on material,
non-public information derived from their positions at Kodak. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 13, 2020
If you are a long-term Kodak shareholder continuously holding the
stock since before July 27, 2020, you may have standing to hold
Kodak harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and
directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You
may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing. Please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number. Additionally, you can [Click here to
join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
EASTMAN KODAK: Saxena White Reminds of Oct. 13 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A., the only firm to have filed a recent securities
fraud class action complaint against Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak"
or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK), reminds investors that there is
limited time to file a motion for lead plaintiff. Saxena White
P.A. recently filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Kodak, and certain of its executive officers, (collectively,
"Defendants") on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Kodak common stock between July 27, 2020 and
August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased Kodak common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than October 13, 2020. You may
obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining
the class action by going to our website (www.saxenawhite.com) and
submitting the required information by clicking here. An attorney
from Saxena White P.A. may reach out to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
class action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need
not take any action at this time to be a class member. Your ability
to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Kodak and
certain of its executive officers. The action alleges that during
the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
material information pertaining to the Company's business and
operations, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose
that the Company had granted its CEO and several other Company
insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options, immediately
prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received a
$765 million loan from the government to produce COVID-19
treatments, which information Defendants knew would cause Kodak's
stock to immediately increase in value once the loan was announced.
In addition, while in possession of this material non-public
information, Kodak's CEO and other Company insiders purchased tens
of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the
announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase
exponentially once news of the loan became public.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.[GN]
ECI MANAGEMENT: Insurer Has Duty to Defend, 11th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, reversed a
district court order granting an insurer's motion for summary
judgment and denying a class action defendant's partial motion for
summary judgment insofar as it concluded the insurer has no duty to
defend the class action defendant in a state court litigation. The
Eleventh Circuit remanded the matter for additional proceedings
consistent with its opinion.
The appellate case is captioned AEGIS ELECTRIC & GAS INTERNATIONAL
SERVICES LIMITED, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. ECI
MANAGEMENT LLC, f.k.a. ECI Management Corporation,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, NICHON ROBERSON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Defendant. No. 19-11114.
(11th Cir.)
AEGIS brought this action to resolve the legal issue of whether
AEGIS, as insurer, has a duty to defend or indemnify the insured,
ECI, in an underlying state court lawsuit brought by Roberson, a
former tenant at an apartment complex managed by ECI. Roberson's
state court complaint alleged that ECI had wrongfully withheld the
security deposits of current and former tenants, including herself,
in violation of Georgia's security deposit law, O.C.G.A. Section
44-7-35(c).
The district court concluded that AEGIS has no duty to defend ECI
in the underlying lawsuit and thus no duty to indemnify ECI for any
damages resulting from that lawsuit. The district court based its
conclusion on two fundamental rulings:
(1) none of the relief requested in the underlying lawsuit or
provided for in the applicable Georgia statute, qualified as a
covered loss under the terms of the policy issued by AEGIS, which
explicitly carved out certain types of relief from the definition
of Loss; and
(2) AEGIS did not waive those carve-outs when it failed to
raise that defense until it filed the declaratory judgment action.
On appeal, ECI contends both of these determinations were
erroneous, and so too the district court's grant of summary
judgment in AEGIS's favor.
Return of Security Deposit
ECI identifies two forms of relief Roberson sought pursuant to
O.C.G.A. Section 44-7-35(c), each of which constitutes a covered
Loss under the Policy: (1) the unmultiplied amount Roberson would
be entitled to as a result of ECI's alleged statutory violation,
i.e., the sum erroneously withheld; and (2) attorney's fees.
Under Georgia law, a landlord must deposit a tenant's security
deposit in an escrow account, and the security deposit shall be
held in trust for the tenant by the landlord or such landlord's
agent except as provided in section 44-7-34. Georgia's security
deposit law thus operates under the premise that a tenant's
security deposit remains the tenant's property, subject to the
landlord's rights to retain or withhold the deposit.
Roberson alleges that, pursuant to section 44-7-35(b), ECI
forfeited its right to retain her security deposit because it
failed to provide Roberson the statutorily mandated final damages
list as part of the post-termination procedure. According to
Roberson, ECI is a landlord who failed to return any part of a
security deposit which is required to be returned to a tenant and
she claims that under section 44-7-35(c), she can recover from ECI
either the sum erroneously withheld or three times that amount plus
attorney's fees.
Section 44-7-35(b) imposes a forfeiture of a landlord's rights to
make a claim against a security deposit. In this context,
forfeiture means the loss of a right, privilege, or property
because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty. That
provision, coupled with the tenant's continued rights in the
security deposit under section 44-7-31, demonstrates that an award
against ECI for the sum erroneously withheld constitutes a return
of Roberson's money back to her. Therefore, if ECI ultimately is
required to transfer any part of the security deposit back to
Roberson under section 44-7-35(c), as demanded by Roberson in her
lawsuit, such a transfer would fall within the scope of the
insurance policy's return carve-out.
The Appellate Court concludes that an award of the allegedly
wrongfully withheld security deposit would not constitute a Loss
under the Policy.
Attorney's Fees
The Policy clearly obligates AEGIS to cover all sums in excess of
the Deductible amount which the Insured shall become legally
obligated to pay as Loss and further defines Loss to include a
compensatory monetary amount for which the Insured may be held
legally liable, including awards. According to the Appeals Court,
the Policy obviously contemplates coverage for any award of
attorney's fees unless, as AEGIS argues, any such fees are
otherwise explicitly excluded from the Policy's definition of
Loss.
O.C.G.A. Section 44-7-35(c) states that a landlord who fails to
return all or part of a tenant's security deposit in violation of
Georgia's security-deposit statute is liable for three times the
sum improperly withheld plus reasonable attorney's fees. Notably,
the statute does not provide for an award of attorney's fees where
the landlord did not act intentionally, since a tenant would be
entitled only to the sum "erroneously withheld" under such
circumstances.
AEGIS characterizes any potential award of attorney's fees as
additional damages resulting from the multiplication of
compensatory damages.
The Appellate Court disagrees. While it is true that an award of
attorney's fees under the statute, as a practical matter, rises and
falls with the award of treble damages, it does not directly flow
from those damages. Rather, both the treble damages and the
attorney's fees flow from a finding that that the landlord acted
intentionally and in the absence of procedures designed to prevent
the wrongful withholding of security deposits. The Appeals Court
further notes that under Georgia law, attorneys' fees, even where
recoverable, are not typically included within the ordinary species
of damages.
The Appellate Court concludes that any award of attorney's fees
under O.C.G.A. Sections 44-7-35(c) would constitute a potential
Loss under the Policy, and AEGIS therefore maintains its duty to
defend ECI.
Judge Frank M. Hull penned the majority opinion.
* * *
Judge Charles R. Wilson concurred, in part, and dissented, in part,
holding that: "though the majority's mistake may not matter today,
it will almost definitely matter tomorrow, at the indemnity phase.
The reason that it doesn't matter now is that we have held that
AEGIS has a duty to defend because the policy covers Roberson's
claim for attorney's fees. As a result, AEGIS must defend the
entire suit, no matter if the policy provides a defense for the
merits of Roberson's claim. But if Roberson wins at trial and ECI
becomes liable for statutory damages in the amount of the withheld
security deposit, the majority's determination that the return
carve-out bars coverage will relieve AEGIS of its duty to indemnify
ECI for the loss. That will leave ECI on the hook for class-action
damages, despite clear coverage under its insurance policy."
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' July 30, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/35hVp5I from Leagle.com.
EOS IT: Herrera Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS HERRERA, JUAN GONZALEZ
RUIZ, and ANDY HERRERA, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. EOS IT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.
and EOS UNIFIED SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-01093-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on October 29, 2020, for
an order:
1. conditionally certify this action as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for:
"all current and former Field Engineers employed by the
Defendant EOS IT Management Solutions, Inc. and classified
as exempt from overtime for at least one week during the
three year period prior to the date the Court grants
conditional certification to the present";
2. compelling the Defendant IT Management Solutions, Inc. to
produce the names, dates of employment, last known
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and email
addresses for each of the Class Members;
3. authorizing the mailing of a Notice of the pendency of
this action to the Class Members with a Consent Form for
them to join this case; and
4. allowing 60 days from the date of mailing of the
Notice/Consent Form for the Class Members to join this
case.
The Plaintiffs contend that just like them, the class of "similarly
situated" workers were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay.
The workers at issue are known as "Field Engineers." The primary
duty of these workers was to perform manual labor tasks with little
discretion. Their job was to physically install audiovisual,
teleconferencing, and IT equipment in office buildings using hand
tools such as drills, tape measures, and levelers. Their work was
generally considered low skill and did not require a college degree
or even a high school diploma. No exemption exists under the Fair
Labor Standards Act that allows the Defendant to deny these workers
overtime pay, the Plaintiffs add..
The Defendant is an information technology company that provides
installation and IT troubleshooting services throughout the
US.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: 713 999 5228
Facsimile: 713 999 1187
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Don Foty. Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
EPPING GARDENS: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Infection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas and David Estcourt, writing for Brisbane Times, reports
that the son of a 92-year-old woman who died of a coronavirus
infection acquired at Epping Gardens Aged Care has filed the first
Supreme Court writ against the home in Melbourne's north.
Sebastian Agnello will be the lead plaintiff in a class action
being brought by Carbone Lawyers, which is representing about 30
families with relatives who have either died at the home or who
were living there until recently.
Mr. Agnello's legal claim, for stress and anxiety caused by his
mother's death at Epping Gardens, is against Heritage Care, which
operates four Melbourne homes.
There have been 205 coronavirus cases in residents and staff
working at Epping Gardens, making it Melbourne's worst outbreak in
aged care.
It is understood at least 20 residents there have died after
contracting a coronavirus infection, although the death toll could
not be confirmed.
Heritage Care could not be reached for comment.
Mr Agnello said in his writ that the company had failed to place
his mother in isolation to protect her from a COVID-19 infection.
Ms. Agnello died on July 28, a week after the Department of Health
and Human Services first acknowledged an outbreak at the home.
Epping Gardens, Mr. Agnello said in the writ, had allowed staff and
residents to not wear personal protective equipment even though
aware there was a pandemic.
The aged care home had also allowed workers and residents to "move
freely within Epping Gardens when there was a risk of spreading
contamination and contracting a COVID-19 infection".
The writ also alleges Epping Gardens allowed staff from other aged
care facilities to enter the home without self-isolating, and
permitted a "baby shower" on July 16 and a party at the home on
July 18 -- even though entry was meant to be restricted to
essential workers and residents.
Epping Gardens' parent company, Heritage Care Pty Ltd, which has
nine for-profit aged care homes across Sydney and Melbourne, is
directed and owned by multimillionaire aged-care moguls Tony
Antonopoulos and Peter Arvanitis.
Families with loved ones in the facility have previously told The
Age of dysfunction, poor staffing and poor care before and during
the crisis.
Carbone Lawyers partner John Karantzis said the families his
company represented had suffered "stress and anxiety as a result of
the actions of the management of Epping Gardens. This should not
happen again." [GN]
FLORIDA: Pinellas Teachers' Union Mulls Suit Over Online Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Solochek, writing for Tampa Bay, reports that Laura
Gibson faces a teaching dilemma, times two, this fall.
Worried about her ailing mother in Tennessee, Gibson asked the
Pinellas County school district to let her teach virtual classes
only, so she could tend to her family on a moment's notice if
needed. She was denied.
Instead, Gibson returned to Thurgood Marshall Fundamental Middle in
St. Petersburg, where she learned that half of her sixth-graders
will attend each period online, and half in person. It's an
arrangement that, in many ways, represents the least feasible
teaching option she might have imagined.
"I'm not quite sure how I will be able to be an effective teacher,"
said Gibson, whose husband has encouraged her to leave. "I don't
see how, practically and realistically, it can work."
She is far from alone.
Teachers and parents have inundated Pinellas School Board members
with complaints that the combining of virtual and face-to-face
students was not what the district promised when it rolled out its
reopening model. The Hillsborough and Pasco school districts are
encountering similar concerns. But with less extensive plans for
what's being termed "simultaneous teaching," those districts have
not seen the reaction Pinellas is getting.
"The way it was presented to teachers and parents was, it was going
to be in-person or online," said Laura McCrary, whose son will
begin his junior year at Countryside High. "My son has autism. . .
. How is he going to get (his accommodations) met in MyPCS Online
when the teacher has got to pay attention to the students in the
classroom?"
Mary Ellen Shaffer, whose daughter attends Mildred Helms
Elementary, said parents were told that kids who took the virtual
learning option would have a dedicated teacher.
"My concern is that the priority, and rightly so, would go be
children that are live and right in front of you," said Shaffer,
who sits on the Largo school's PTA board. She worried the model
will be difficult for students at home, and stressful for teachers
who are asked to do so much this fall.
Kevin Hendrick, the school district's chief academic officer,
acknowledged the situation is far from ideal.
"Nothing that we are doing is optimal," Hendrick said, noting how
the spread of COVID-19 has thrown the "usual" out the door.
Unlike past years, health and safety take increased precedence over
everything else, he said. That meant rethinking teaching
assignments from the original proposal that separated online and
in-person classes.
"The best way to keep our schools open and keep our employees safe
... is to have the fewest number of students in the classroom at
one time," Hendrick explained.
Schools were given the option of how to organize their offerings.
Some, such as Safety Harbor Middle, worked to keep their classes
distinct as much as possible.
Many others reviewed their teaching rosters and student enrollment
plans, and decided to go with the simultaneous approach.
Hendrick used Campbell Park Elementary's first-grade sections as
one example, showing how the school-based team considered several
options before settling on one that allowed a new teacher to have
only face-to-face students while the others split their load.
The district included five pages of ideas for simultaneous teaching
in its MyPCS Online teacher guide. For technology and direct
instruction, it says, "think simple."
That means sitting in front of the computer with the camera on,
projecting any materials both on the screen and in the classroom.
Small groups can chat together while the teacher works with others,
Hendrick said.
The guide also stresses using Canvas, the district's new learning
management system, as the place for running classes, making and
receiving assignments, and other tasks. That would be a goal even
without the online component, Hendrick said, as the schools aim to
make coursework more accessible to all students. Who knows when
COVID-19 might force them home, too?
In all, he said he expected the model to work as teachers and
students become comfortable with it.
Gibson, the sixth-grade teacher, had her concerns, though. She
wondered how she could pay adequate attention to students in two
places at one time, noting it's hard enough to manage a classroom.
And she has gifted students.
She also questioned how her students would be able to hear one
another, much less collaborate, in the setup. And she observed that
her in-person students won't have computers available to them,
unlike their peers at home.
"The practical aspects of this have not been explained to anyone,"
Gibson said.
Nor does the arrangement jibe with teachers' memorandum of
understanding with the district, Pinellas Classroom Teachers
Association president Nancy Velardi said.
"They did say at the table that perhaps occasionally this might
happen as a very rare occurrence where there is only one teacher to
teach a subject," Velardi said. "Now they're giving it to
everybody. This is certainly not what we discussed."
She suggested that parents, students and teachers should be upset
with the change. "I think everybody is getting shortchanged."
The union hasn't taken any formal action, Velardi said, instead
waiting to see if the administration alters its course.
"If we have to, we will do a class action grievance or lawsuit,"
she said.
The situation isn't as dire in Hillsborough County, where everyone
is still trying to figure out what course schedules look like. But
Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association executive director
Stephanie Baxter-Jenkins said she anticipated the issue might arise
there, too, in time.
"It is not easy to do both," Baxter-Jenkins said. "We want it to be
in very limited circumstances. But I don't think that's going to be
what's going to happen."
Pasco County schools, meanwhile, are trying to keep simultaneous
teaching to a minimum, district spokesman Steve Hegarty said. Where
possible, he added, the district has adopted new technology to make
it more accessible.
It's called Swivl, and is being used primarily in career-technical
classes. Supervisor Lori Romano said the district has tested the
system, which uses multiple microphones and a camera that follows
the teacher using GPS trackers, and found it simple to use, with
easy ability for communicating with all students.
Pasco bought 237 units for career-technical teachers, and another
70 for International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement and
Cambridge instructors. So far, Romano said, teachers have largely
welcomed it.
That's not readily available in Pinellas.
McCrary, whose son attends Countryside High, said she believed
Pinellas officials took the lazy way out by allowing for the
simultaneous teaching, rather than trying other approaches. At
first, she said, it upset her.
But she decided not to get too angry, especially at the people
inside her son's school.
"The state has caused this mess," she said. "I don't think parents
should blame teachers or administrators. . . . Everybody's plate is
full." [GN]
FRESH FARMS: Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul C. Besozzi, writing for TCPA World, reports that in the Tenth
Circuit, the preferred disposition of any case is on its merits and
not by default judgment. But in Danyale Yarger v. Fresh Farms, LLC,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144579, Case No. 2:19-CV-2767-JAR-JPO, United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, August 12, 2020,
the defendant's conduct in a TCPA class action case taxed even that
preference and the "fairly liberal standard" for setting aside an
entry of default.
Ms. Yarger claimed that Fresh Farms, "a South Dakota wholesaler
that delivers fruit and vegetables to customers nationwide,"
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending
unsolicited automatic text messages to her cellphone. She brought
her class action lawsuit in December of 2019. Three months later,
in March of 2020, after Fresh Farms had failed to appear or answer
the complaint, the plaintiff moved for the entry of a default
judgment and the Clerk of the Court obliged.
In May 2020, after Ms. Yarger had moved for class certification and
to take discovery in anticipation of entry of a final default
judgment, counsel for Fresh Farms appeared and moved to set aside
the Clerk's entry of default, which Ms. Yarger of course opposed.
But counsel's appearance in the case was short lived; the Court
approved his withdrawal from the case in June 2020 for "the primary
reason… that Fresh Farms wished to terminate his representation
due to lack of financial resources." Finally, in early July, the
Court warned Fresh Farms that as an LLC it could not proceed pro se
or be represented by a corporate officer. Moreover, get counsel by
August 3, 2020 or face entry of default. That date came and went
without any new counsel appearing or any responses to pending
motions.
With this factual backdrop, Chief Judge Julie A. Robinson focused
on "whether the default was the result of culpable conduct by"
Fresh Farms. The Court observed that "a defendant's conduct is
considered culpable if he defaulted willfully or has no excuse for
the default." Moreover, a "defendant's knowledge of a lawsuit and
his post-service actions 'play a role in measuring the willfulness
of a defendant's default.'" So, "when the defendant has actual or
constructive notice of a lawsuit, yet completely fails to answer or
otherwise communicate with the Court, his failure is willful and
'demonstrates complete disregard for the authority of the Court.'"
Fresh Farms pleaded that it was initially financially challenged in
hiring counsel, consulted counsel without TCPA experience and
retained counsel as soon as it was able to pay. Therefore, "it in
no way attempted to manipulate the legal process to benefit itself
or gain leverage through delay, and that because it did not act in
bad faith, its conduct is not culpable."
Judge Robinson would have none of it. Under the circumstances,
"Fresh Farms' failure to appear in this case until months after
service amounts to culpable conduct rather than inadvertence or
simple neglect." Moreover, the Court observed "Fresh Farms' CEO
does not appear to be a stranger to the legal process. Yet despite
having knowledge of this suit at the time it was filed in December
2019, or at the latest in mid-February 2020, Fresh Farms failed to
appear, seek an extension of time to respond, or otherwise
communicate with this Court. Fresh Farms' explanation that it did
not have the resources to hire a 'TCPA attorney' is not a
persuasive justification for having failed to respond until nearly
five months after service. No particular TCPA expertise is required
to seek an extension of time to respond, nor does Fresh Farms'
contention that it lacks the resources to participate in this case
excuse it from its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure."
All of this was more than enough for Judge Robinson. "Because this
litigation has been essentially halted due to Fresh Farms'
unresponsiveness, the Court denies Fresh Farms' motion to set aside
the Clerk's entry of default."
The TCPAWorld lesson may seem simple and obvious -- always be
responsive to the Court. [GN]
FRONTIER COOPERATIVE: Zanca Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Cooperative.
The case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Frontier Cooperative, Case No.
1:20-cv-06965 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Frontier Co-op is a cooperatively owned wholesaler of natural and
organic products, founded in 1976 and based in Norway, Iowa.
Frontier Co-op sells products under the Frontier Co-op, Simply
Organic and Aura Cacia brands.[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
GENERAL MOTORS: Talley Sues Over Defective Starters in Camaro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Talley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01137-UNA (D.
Del., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
disclose material facts and safety concerns to consumers with
regard to 2010 to present Chevrolet Camaro, where the starters and
the heat shielding around them were defective in design,
workmanship and material.
The Class Vehicles are equipped with starters that are prone to
premature failure, both within and outside of the warranty periods,
which necessitates costly repairs and replacements. These problems
can cause the car to fail to start, particularly in hot weather or
after the vehicle has just been driven, the Plaintiff contends.
GM in designing and manufacturing the Class Vehicles, installed
defective starters and/or heat shields, failed to install them
correctly, and/or failed to account for the levels of heat the
starter and the surrounding components would be subject to from the
rest of the vehicle, according to the complaint. Vehicles,
including the Class Vehicles, have heat shields installed to
protect the starter and the surrounding components from the heat.
However, in the Class Vehicles, the heat shield is insufficient to
protect the starter and the surrounding components from soaking up
the heat, which increases the resistance within the starter until
it burns out (collectively, the "Starter Defect").
When the Starter Defect manifests during the warranty period, GM
authorizes its dealerships merely to replace the starter, wiring,
and other damaged components with the same defective versions,
without improving the heat shielding. As a result, the Starter
Defect manifests again, often outside the warranty period, and
Class Members are forced to replace the starter and other damaged
components and to bear the cost repeatedly, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff contends that GM was well aware of the Starter Defect
from pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis, calls to
its customer service hotline, aggregate part sales, dealer audits,
aggregate warranty information, and customer complaints made to
both GM and dealers.
The Starter Defect is material because it poses a serious safety
concern, according to the complaint. The failure of a vehicle to
start, especially after it has recently been driven, can cause
owners to be stranded. The Starter Defect is also material because
consumers incur significant and unexpected repair costs. GM's
failure to disclose the Starter Defect at the time of purchase is
material because no reasonable consumer expects to spend hundreds,
if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace damaged vehicle
components that the manufacturer knows will fail well before the
expected useful life of the component and damage other components
of the vehicle as well. Had GM disclosed the Starter Defect, the
Plaintiff would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have
paid less for them.
The Plaintiff purchased a used 2016 Chevrolet Camaro with 17,896
miles on the odometer from Koons Ford of Baltimore in Maryland.
GM has designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, and leased the
Class Vehicles. GM has sold, directly or indirectly, through
dealers and other retail outlets, thousands of Class Vehicles in
Delaware and nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
- and -
Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-4811
Fax: (310) 943-0396
Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 792-6676
Email: myarnoff@kehowlawfim.com
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Genius Brands International
Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
GNUS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=8741&wire=1
GNUS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 17, 2020 -
July 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=8741&wire=1
According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. [GN]
GEO GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Poor Handling of COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------
Feliz Romero and Jake Meyer, writing for WGNO, report that another
class action lawsuit has been filed against the GEO Group.
Investors filed the lawsuit against the for-profit prison operator
due to their poor handling of COVID-19 in their facilities and
misleading investors on their handling of outbreaks.
"Something needs to be done soon because COVID-19 is spreading
really quickly and it is only a matter of time," said Denisse Mata,
an inmates wife at one of the Reeves County Detention Center that
is owned by the GEO Group.
The 25-page class action complaint states that the GEO Group made
"false and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies."
The claim also states that they "specifically made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose that the geo group
maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures."
"They run other private prisons and in all of them they have the
same exact problem," said Mata.
This particular lawsuit highlighting the GEO Group's "inadequate
procedures subjected residents of the company's halfway houses at a
significant health risk" in a Kansas based facility.
These complaints sounding eerily similar to those being made right
here in West Texas, Dennise Mata said this is not an isolated
case.
"The inmates that are showing the symptoms they are not being
quarantined or they are not being placed into other units. They are
all mixed up together," she said.
The lawsuit stating that the GEO Group was vulnerable to
significant financial and reputable harm and as a result lied in
public statements when they said they were handling the COVID-19
outbreak and provided accurate care.
Mata said, "It just makes you feel frustrated and scared that every
day you go to sleep and you wake up even scared to answer that
phone call that probably your husband is going to be next or if he
is feeling sick and it's just hard."
The GEO Grouptells us they filled to dismiss the lawsuit.This is
just one lawsuit, however, there are 42 records of the geo group
settling for employee-related offenses. They have had to pay $10M
in penalties for 15 instances of misconduct and have 8 additional
cases pending in litigation.
If you have a family member who has a complaint about conditions at
a GEO Group facility, reach out to our reporter Feliz Romero at
fromero@kmid.tv or to our newsroom at news@kmid.tv. [GN]
GEO GROUP: Jakubowitz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Aug. 16 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE:GEO)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT GEO:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8602&from=1
Class Period: February 27, 2020 - June 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially 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.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC PINK:BAYRY)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BAYRY:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form/?id=8602&from=1
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
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
GISLASON & HUNTER: Stuckey Sues in Minnesota Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gislason & Hunter
LLP. The case is styled as Brian Stuckey, Rebecca Stuckey, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gislason
& Hunter LLP, Case No. 0:20-cv-01859-PAM-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 27,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Gislason & Hunter LLP is a national law firm in New Ulm,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
GRANTS PASS, OR: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Blake Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Grants Pass filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Debra Blake, et al. v. City of Grants
Pass, Case No. 1:18-cv-01823-CL, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Medford.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke ruled for a class-action lawsuit for
the homeless in Grants Pass on August 7th, expanding the current
city camping ordinance to include, "all involuntarily homeless
individuals living in Grants Pass," said court documents that were
filed in U.S. District Court in Medford.
Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson, and John Logan stood up for the
homeless community by suing the City of Grants Pass for trying to,
"run them out of town," said the court documents.
According to the court documents, the three individuals do not have
permanent addresses so they are technically homeless. The
ordinances they referred to involved camping laws and sleeping in
public places. The homeless individuals said in the documents that
the ordinances work against people who are homeless.
The court documents also state that there are not enough homeless
shelters in Grants Pass and the only one that fits the definition
of a "homeless shelter" is Gospel Rescue Mission.
Brian Bouteller from Gospel Rescue Mission is against the lawsuit.
Bouteller said the homeless people that want help are willing to
work and live by rules.
The appellate case is captioned as Debra Blake, et al. v. City of
Grants Pass, Case No. 20-35752, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 25, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on October 26, 2020;
-- Appellant City of Grants Pass' opening brief is due on
December 4, 2020;
-- Appellees Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson and John Logan's
answering brief is due on January 4, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DEBRA BLAKE, GLORIA JOHNSON, and JOHN LOGAN,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Edward Johnson, Esq.
OREGON LAW CENTER
921 S.W. Washington
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 473-8310
E-mail: ejohnson@oregonlawcenter.org
Defendant-Appellant CITY OF GRANTS PASS is represented by:
Aaron Paul Hisel, Esq.
Gerald L. Warren, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GERALD WARREN AND ASSOCIATES
901 Capitol Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Telephone: (503) 480-7250
E-mail: ahisel@geraldwarrenlaw.com
gwarren@geraldwarrenlaw.com
GREATCOLLECTIONS.COM LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greatcollections.com,
LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Greatcollections.com, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06978 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GreatCollections was founded in 2010 by Ian Russell and Raeleen
Endo to improve how coins and paper money are sold at auction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire Software.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
GWRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8741&wire=1
Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)
GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 -
March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8741&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Guidewire Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
HCC SPECIALTY: Sued by R&J in California for Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCC Specialty
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as R&J Entertainment
LLC doing business as: Trapped Escape Room a California limited
liability company; Trapped! LLC; individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HCC Specialty
Insurance Company, an Oklahoma Corporation; Houston Casualty
Company, a Texas Corporation; Case No. 4:20-cv-06035-KAW (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 27, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance
Contract.
HCC Specialty Group provides specialized insurance products for the
sports, entertainment and promotional industries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
777 S. Harbour Island Boulevard, Suite 950
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 229-1000
Email: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com
HELPSYSTEMS: Lawsuit Mulled Over GlobalScape Acquisition Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Prickett Morgan, writing for ITJungle, reports that secure
file transfer is a thing, particularly with companies working
remotely, and this is why the investors behind the HelpSystems
conglomerate are shelling out a whopping $217 million, or $9.50 per
share, to buy a publicly traded rival in the secure managed file
transfer tool arena called GlobalScape.
The deal offered by HelpSystems and agreed to represents a 16
percent premium over the market capitalization of GlobalScape prior
to the announcement of the acquisition, and the deal will be funded
by cash on hand at HelpSystems plus new debt that is backed by
Jefferies Finance and credit funds affiliated with Charlesbank
Capital Partners. It is not clear how much is being offered in
cash, but in the current environment, money is cheap to borrow and
cash is king, so we expect it to be a very debt heavy deal.
The lawyers are circling, with several firms specializing in class
action lawsuits saying that they want to file to compel a better
deal be made. In late 2017 through early 2019, the company's shares
were pretty steady at somewhere around $3.50 to $4.00 a share, or a
third to half the market capitalization GlobalScape had before the
deal was announced on July 17. But in early 2019, as the company's
profits nearly quadrupled, the company's stock kissed $14.00 a
share, and of course that was before the coronavirus pandemic hit
and changed everything. The lawyers are just sore no one offered a
deal back then when they might have been able to command a higher
price than the $217 million being offered.
GlobalScape was founded in 1996 in San Antonio by Matt Goulet, who
was its president and chief executive officer. The company is
public, so we know a bit more about it than we do with other
HelpSystems acquisitions. This seems like a pretty good deal for a
company that does around $10 million in sales a quarter and brings
roughly a third of its revenue the bottom line here in 2020. That's
about as good as it gets in the software world. In fiscal 2019
ended in December, revenues were $40.3 million, up 17 percent, and
net income was $13.2 million, a factor of 3.6X larger than the
prior 2018 year. The growth has cooled off a bit in 2020, but that
is to be expected, all things considered. The company had $12.5
million in the bank and clean books as the second quarter ended in
June, and hence, this is a good time for HelpSystems and its
backers to step in and acquire it.
It has been a rough couple of years for GlobalScape on the
financial and management front, even as the business has been
growing.
In August 2017, the company announced that its audit committee had
been looking into "improper arrangements" with customers that
overstated accounts receivables in 2016. The company was traded on
the New York Stock Exchange at the time and was in the doghouse for
filing its quarterly reports late as it went through its books with
a fine-toothed comb. In February 2018, NYSE, which owns the
American Stock Exchange, and GlobalScape worked out how it would
get compliant and still keep trading, and that months its chief
financial officer resigned. After the numbers were redone, the
company posted some net losses, which were not the usual for
GlobalScape, but in 2018 the company was focused on its Arcus
Enhanced File Transfer cloud product and moved forward. It also
bought a huge chunk of its shares off the market through a modified
Dutch auction tender offer. In April 2019, as the company was
getting itself back on track, Goulet died unexpectedly. This is a
tragic event for any company, but particularly hard on relatively
small companies, even if they are publicly traded. Maybe especially
so. Current and past management and directors of GlobalScape held
33 percent of the shares, and approved the merger with HelpSystems
(which is really an acquisition), which is expected to close in the
third quarter.
Of course, HelpSystems bought Linoma Software four years back for
its GoAnywhere MFT product, and Mike Devine, vice president of the
company, said that this acquisition will not in any way affect the
GoAnywhere MFT business. "It is growing remarkably well and we will
continue to invest in it aggressively," Devine tells us.
When we asked if this was a backdoor way for HelpSystems to go
public -- this is how Dell went public again through its VMware
acquisition, so it is not a crazy idea to ask -- Devine said quite
the opposite was the plan, and that HelpSystems will remain private
and GlobalScape will cease to be traded publicly and will be
absorbed into the conglomerate.
We wonder now if HelpSystems will, thanks to all of its
acquisitions and organic growth, pass through $150 million or even
maybe $200 million in sales after the GlobalScape deal closes.
[GN]
IC SYSTEM: Robinson-Morris Files FDCPA Class Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Eugene Robinson-Morris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C.
System Incorporated, Unknown Parties named as: John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01684-DWL (D. Ariz., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
I. C. System, Inc., was founded in 1941. The Company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.[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
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, AR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baxter Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CYDNEY BAXTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No.
3:20-cv-00223-LPR (E.D. Ark., Aug. 6, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Baxter was employed by the Defendant as deputy and
matron.
Independence County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
INTIRION CORP: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intirion Corporation.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Intirion Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-06963 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Intirion Corp was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business
includes manufacturing household refrigerators and freezers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
IRIS USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iris USA, Inc. The
case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Iris USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06520-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesse M.
Furman.
An initial pretrial conference is set for December 1, 2020, before
Judge Furman.
Iris USA, Inc., manufactures plastics products. The Company offers
carts, desk top organization, drawers, file boxes, racks and
shelves, and other related products. Iris USA serves customers in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
JO-ANN STORES, LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. JO-ANN STORES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
3:20-cv-01520-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2020), alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.joann.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., is an American specialty retailer of crafts
and fabrics based in Hudson, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
ADA@wilshirelawfirm.com
JONES DAY: Collective Status Sought for Equal Pay Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as NILAB RAHYAR TOLTON et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JONES
DAY, a General Partnership, Case No. 1:19-cv-00945-RDM (D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying an Equal Pay Act collective
action; and
2. authorizing the mailing of notice and consent to join
forms to members of the proposed collective action.
Jones Day is an international law firm based in the United States.
As of 2018, it was the fifth largest law firm in the U.S. and the
13th highest grossing law firm in the world.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Proposed Classes, and the
Proposed Collective, are:
Kate Mueting, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Ste 300
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 499-5206
Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
E-mail: kmueting@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
David W. Sanford, Esq.
Russell L. Kornblith, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 402-5650
Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Deborah K. Marcuse, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
111 S. Calvert Street, Ste. 1950
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 834-7415
Facsimile: (410) 834-7425
E-mail: dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com
JURA INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jura, Inc. The case
is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jura, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06964 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Intirion Corp was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business
includes manufacturing household refrigerators and freezers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
KENNY FLOWERS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenny Flowers, LLC.
The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Kenny Flowers,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06937 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kenny Flowers is a lifestyle brand that set out to put a bloomin'
remix on the classic Hawaiian.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Sues Over Defective Telluride Windshields
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yandery Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges violation of the Texas Deceptive
Practices Act and breach of express and implied warranties under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The action is brought by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on
behalf of a proposed class of past and present owners and lessees
of 2020 Kia Telluride vehicles with defective windshields designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and serviced
by the Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knew that the Class
Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects
that can cause the windshield to crack, chip and/or fracture.
However, rather than offer to fix the Class Vehicles free of
charge, the Defendant has instead fraudulently misrepresented the
nature and scope of the defect, consistently denied valid warranty
claims, and merely replaced defective windshields with other
similarly defective windshields. In addition to these safety
issues, the cost to repair the windshield defect can be
exorbitant--the Plaintiff herself was told a replacement windshield
would cost approximately $1,000--requiring consumers to pay
significant sums over the life of their Class Vehicles.
Despite being notified of the windshield defect from, among other
things, pre-production testing, numerous consumer complaints,
warranty data, and dealership repair orders, the Defendant has not
recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the windshield defect, has
not offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of
charge, and has not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners
and leaseholders the costs they incurred relating to diagnosing and
repairing the windshield defect, the Plaintiff contends.
Kia Motors America, Inc., is an Irvine, California-based company
that designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services,
repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
1333 Stradella Road
Los Angeles, CA 90077
Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
KINTO USA: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kinto USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kinto USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06967
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KINTO is a Japanese brand that develops coffeeware, teaware,
tableware, and lifestyle accessories balancing between usability
and aesthetics.[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
KRAPILS THE GREAT: Hankes Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEANNE HANKES and JANIE MORRISON, individually and as Class
Representatives v. KRAPILS, THE GREAT STEAK, INC., RON MERSCH, SR.,
individually, RON MUERSCH, JR., individually, and TED MUERSCH,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv—4989 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 25, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by improperly paying minimum
wages and overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and others.
The Plaintiffs were employed and classified by the Defendants as
non-exempt, hourly paid servers, and tipped employees, but were
deprived of minimum wages and overtime compensation at the proper
rates, and of all tips received. The Plaintiffs allege that they
and other tipped employees were required by the Defendants to
participate in a mandatory, involuntary and invalid tip pool that
included non-tipped supervisors and kitchen employees. As a result,
the Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective were
compensated by Defendants based on an incorrect sub-minimum wage
rate of pay and failed to pay them all tips earned.
Krapils, The Great Steak, Inc., is a restaurant serving steaks and
other classic American fare. Ron Mersch, Sr., Ron Mersch, Jr. and
Ted Muersch have been the Manager, the General Manager and the
President of Krapils.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAC A. COTIGUALA
431 South Dearbon St., Suite 606
Chicago, IL 60605
Tel: (312) 939-2100
- and –
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312) 233-1550
LENDLEASE: Class Actions Mulled Over Sale of Engineering Business
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Cummins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that global property group Lendlease has been hard hit across its
major operations from the global pandemic which has led to a net
loss of $310 million for the year.
The loss was at the higher end of its forecast loss of between $230
million to $340 million issued on July 1 in unaudited accounts. It
was impacted by a $368 million loss on the sale of the engineering
business to Acciona.
The company's profit after tax and before one-off pandemic-related
costs was $96 million, which is sharply down on the $497 million
profit booked for the same time last year.
Chief executive Steve McCann said while it was a disappointing
result, with the second half of the 2020 year ravaged by COVID-19,
he was upbeat about the length and breadth of upcoming developments
to generate future earnings.
"Lendlease experienced a disappointing financial result in
financial year 2020, as the group brought to account costs for the
exit of the engineering business, while the core business was
impacted by COVID-19 in the second half," Mr McCann said.
Lendlease started a strategic review of the business in January
following the sale of the engineering business and will update
investors at an investor day on August 31.
Mr McCann said considerable progress was made on changing the focus
of some developments with the group converting what was earmarked
for an office tower into a residential building. There were major
planning milestones achieved including the $22 billion Google
project in San Francisco which is moving to the next development
phase. Lendlease will also look at increasing its presence in the
build-to-rent sector in Australia.
Lendlease invests, builds and develops mixed-use projects worth
about $113 billion across European and Asian cities. To help fund
projects, it sells down its stake in the sites to investment
partners.
In the funds management and investment business, Lendlease has sold
a 25 per cent share of One Sydney Harbour, a 72-storey residential
tower in Barangaroo it is constructing, to Mitsubishi Estate. That
deal will contribute an estimated $100 million profit after tax in
the 2021 year.
Macquarie Equities analyst Stuart McLean said Lendlease was
pointing to a subdued first half of 2021 as the near-term effects
of COVID-19 continue to suppress earning. "But the urban
regeneration pipeline underpins future earnings growth," Mr McLean
said.
Mr McCann said the federal and state government's stimulus
initiatives including JobKeeper and HomeBuilder grants had been a
boost to the urban regeneration business, adding the latter could
be extended to help buyers of apartments.
HomeBuilder provides eligible owner-occupiers and first home buyers
with a grant to build a new home or substantially renovate an
existing property but does not extend to apartments.
"I think that that is something that we certainly would like the
government to consider. We know that's been advocated by some,
members of the property industry to try and extend that. So we
certainly encourage the government to have a close look at that,"
Mr McCann said.
He said the Cross Yarra Partnership consortium for the Melbourne
Metro Tunnel Project was continuing to work with the Victorian
government on a confidential basis to resolve issues in relation to
the scope and costs on the project.
Mr McCann said despite reports of new class actions from the sale
of the engineering business, "we don't believe that any action has
yet been commenced. And as we said before, we'll vigorously defend
any class action".
The full year distribution was 33.3¢. [GN]
LOWRY FARMS: Benito Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNABE ANTONIO BENITO; and JESUS JIMENEZ MARTINEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWRY FARMS,
INC.; and MICHAEL CLAYTON LOWRY a/k/a CLAY LOWRY, Case
1:20-cv-01039-SOH (W.D. Ark., Aug. 6, 2020), seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages, overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Benito and Martinez were employed by the Defendants as
sugarcane planters.
Lowry Farms, Inc., is a family farm located in Pilot Oak, community
near Water Valley, Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Knoepp, Esq.
Norma Ventura, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 1287
Decatur, GA 30031-1287
Telephone: (404) 521-6700
E-mail: jim.knoepp@splcenter.org
norma.ventura@splcenter.org
- and -
Anne Janet Hernandez Anderson, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 370037
Miami, FL 33137-0037
Telephone: (786) 810-5673
E-mail: aj.hernandez@splcenter.org
LT. HAMILTON: Court Denies Class Certification of Inmate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN RODRIGUES v. LT.
HAMILTON, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-00338-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Norman K. Moon entered an order denying certification of
class action.
The Court said, "In this action, pro se plaintiff Kevin Rodrigues,
a federal prisoner, asserts civil rights claims against a number of
individuals. He recently filed a motion requesting that the court
certify this case as a class action, which is pending before the
court. Because he is proceeding without counsel, however, Rodrigues
may not assert claims on behalf of any other person. It is plain
error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by
counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.
Moreover, the motion references two other individuals who Rodrigues
alleges are similarly situated, but both of these prisoners already
have filed their own cases in this court, as Rodrigues's motion
indicates. Thus, there is no need for them to be joined as
plaintiffs in this case."[CC]
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Marietta City Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 26, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the putative
civil class action suit entitled, City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt
ARD LLC, is pending.
In July 2020, Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order granting
the parties' oral motion to stay the Court's ruling on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. No decision will be entered until after
September 15.
In February 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative
civil class action complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the
price of Acthar Gel.
The complaint, which pleads one claim for unjust enrichment,
purports to be brought on behalf of third-party payers and their
beneficiaries as well as people without insurance in the U.S. and
its Territories who paid for Acthar Gel from four years prior to
the filing of the complaint until the date of trial.
The case is proceeding as City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD
LLC.
Marietta alleges that it has paid $2.0 million to cover the cost
of an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the Company
has been unjustly enriched as a result.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and
has moved to dismiss the complaint.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Facing Shaver Putative Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 26, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a putative class
action suit entitled, Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et
al., No. VLC-S-S-205793.
On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, the Canadian Ministry of
Health ("Province") and the College of Pharmacists of British
Columbia ("College") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
captioned Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No.
VLC-S-S-205793.
The action purports to be brought on behalf of any persons (1)
prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British
Columbia after March 1, 2014, (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C
within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid
agonist treatment after February 1, 2014, (3) who transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in
British Columbia after March 1, 2014, or (4) covered by Pharmacare
Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment
after February 1, 2014.
The suit generally alleges that the Province's decision to grant
Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded
methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely
effected on those being treated for opioid use disorder.
The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the
Mallinckrodt defendants failed to warn patients about, and made
false representations concerning, the risks of switching from
compounded methadone to Methadose.
The suit seeks general, special, aggravated, punitive and exemplary
damages in an unspecified amount, costs and interest and injunctive
relief against the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt
defendants.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this
matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Strougo Class Suit Transferred to New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 26, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled,
Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. has been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, its CEO Mark Trudeau, its CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its former
Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K.
Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between
February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to
the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and
safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.
A lead plaintiff was designated by the court on June 25, 2020, and
on July 30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MD SOLARSCIENCES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blinds, Zanca Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA ZANCA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. MD SOLARSCIENCES CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-06972-LTS (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 27, 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.
Because the Defendant's Web site, http://www.mdsolarsciences.com,
is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
the Web site violates the Americans with Disabilities Act,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is
a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a
protected class of individuals under the ADA.
MD SolarSciences Corp. is an American skincare products and retail
company. The Defendant is a skincare products and retail company,
and owns and operates the Web site. The Website offers features,
which should allow all consumers to access the Defendant's goods
and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
MDL 2460: Bid to Certify Class in Niaspan Antitrust Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE NIASPAN ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO ALL ACTIONS, MDL No. 2460, No. 13-MD-2460 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Jan E. DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (i) denied without prejudice the End-Payor
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, (ii) denied the
Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Laura Craft
and Eric Miller Offered in Support of End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, and (iii) denied as moot the End-Payor
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of John F.
Fritz.
The multidistrict litigation involves what has come to be known as
a "pay-for-delay," or "reverse payment," settlement -- a practice
in which a brand-name drug manufacturer brings a
patent-infringement action against a generic drug manufacturer and
then compensates the generic drug manufacturer for its agreement to
delay entering the market with a competing generic version of the
brand-name drug.
In the case, two putative classes -- the Direct-Purchaser
Plaintiffs ("DPPs") and the End-Payor Plaintiffs ("EPPs") -- aver
that the brand-name manufacturer of the drug Niaspan, Kos
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., entered into anticompetitive settlement
agreements with the generic manufacturer of that drug, Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in March 2005 in order to terminate
patent-infringement litigation brought by Kos against Barr in the
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Kos was
later acquired by Defendant AbbVie Inc., and Barr was later
acquired by Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In March 2002, Kos Pharmaceuticals initiated the first of a series
of patent-infringement lawsuits against Barr in the Southern
District of New York, alleging infringement of its Niaspan patents.
After three years of litigation, on April 12, 2005, Kos and Barr
entered into several related settlement agreements terminating the
litigation. These agreements constitute the alleged
"pay-for-delay" or "reverse payment" settlement that is the subject
of the litigation.
EPPs allege that the Defendants conduct violated the antitrust laws
of 16 states, the consumer protection laws of five states, the
unfair trade practices laws of seven states, and the unjust
enrichment laws of 25 states -- a total of 53 state laws from 26
jurisdictions. Specifically, EPPs claim that as a result of the
alleged unlawful reverse payment settlement, the putative class
members were denied the opportunity to purchase generic Niaspan
before Sept. 20, 2013, and were further denied the benefit of the
price competition that would have ensued in a competitive
environment where Kos launched an authorized generic Niaspan to
compete with Barr during the 180-day exclusivity period.
On Dec. 19, 2018, EPPs filed a Motion for Class Certification. In
their motion, EPPs seek certification of an overcharges class and
an unjust enrichment class, each with two subclasses, a third party
payor ("TPP") and a consumer subclass:
a. Third Party Payor (TPP) Overcharges Sub-class Definition:
All entities in the United States and its territories who
purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all
of the purchase price for Niaspan and/or generic versions of
Niaspan in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin for consumption by their members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries during the
period April 3, 2007 through Jan. 31, 2018 (the Overcharges
Class Period).
b. Consumer Overcharges Sub-class Definition: All persons in the
United States and its territories who purchased, paid, and/or
provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price
for Niaspan and/or generic versions of Niaspan in Arizona,
California, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
for consumption by themselves or their families during the
period April 3, 2007 through Jan. 31, 2018 (the Overcharges
Class Period).
c. TPP Unjust Enrichment Sub-class Definition: All entities in
the
United States and its territories who purchased, paid, and/or
provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price
for Niaspan and/or generic versions of Niaspan in Alabama,
Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming for consumption by their members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries during the
period April 3, 2007 through Sept. 19, 2013 (the Unjust
Enrichment Class Period).
d. Consumer Unjust Enrichment Sub-class Definition: All persons
in
the United States and its territories who purchased, paid,
and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
price for Niaspan and/or generic versions of Niaspan in
Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming for consumption by themselves
or their families during the period April 3, 2007 through
Sept.
19, 2013 (the Unjust Enrichment Class Period).
In their motion, EPPs ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs A.F. of
L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, City of Providence, Rhode
Island, Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund,
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132
Health and Welfare Fund, New England Electrical Workers Benefits
Fund, Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund,
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund, Miles Wallis, and Carol Prasse
("named Plaintiffs") as class representatives. EPPs also request
the appointment of Kenneth A. Wexler of Wexler Wallace LLP, Steve
Shadowen of Hilliard Shadowen LLC, Michael Buchman of Motley Rice
LLC, and Marvin Miller of Miller Law LLC as the Co-Lead Counsel,
and Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff P.C. as the
Liaison Counsel for the EPP class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g).
On Feb. 25, 2019, the Defendants responded to EPPs' motion for
class certification and filed a motion to exclude the expert
testimony of EPP class certification experts Eric Miller and Laura
Craft. On March 25, 2019, EPPs filed a reply in support of their
motion for class certification, responded to the Defendants' motion
to exclude the expert testimony of Miller and Craft, and filed a
motion to exclude the expert testimony of defendants' expert John
Fritz. On April 8, 2019, the Defendants responded to EPPs' motion
to exclude Fritz's testimony. The Court held Hearings on EPPs'
class certification motion and the related motions to exclude
expert testimony on May 14 and 15, 2019, and July 23, 2019.
Judge DuBois denied that part of the Defendants' motion seeking to
exclude all of the opinions and testimony of Miller. However,
Miller's testimony is limited to his opinions that (1) EPPs can
obtain transactional level purchase data regarding purchases of
Niaspan and its generic equivalents during the class period and (2)
EPPs can use PBM and pharmacy transaction records to identify
purchasers of Niaspan and its generic equivalents during the class
period. However, he has not provided the required foundation to
opine that class members can be identified in a reliable and
administratively feasible manner.
The Judge concludes that Craft's expert opinion is admissible.
That part of the Defendants' motion seeking to exclude the opinion
and testimony of Laura Craft is denied. The Judge finds that (i)
Craft's failure to review the data produced in the case does not
render her opinion unreliable; (ii) Craft's relatively threadbare
methodology is adequate under the liberal admissibility standard of
Rule 702; and (iii) Craft's testimony assists the Court in
understanding the evidence relating to whether EPPs have provided a
reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for identifying
class members, which is relevant to the Court's determination of
class ascertainability.
The EPPs contend that they meet the four requirements under Rule
23(a) and the three requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The Judge is
concerned that the class contains, at minimum, substantial numbers
of uninjured consumer brand loyalists, coupon users, and flat
co-payers. The Judge is not satisfied that the EPPs have a
non-individualized means of identifying these uninjured class
members in a way that protects the Defendants' constitutional
rights. The Judge concludes that the EPPs lack common evidence of
antitrust injury, and cannot satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
requirement. The EPPs have not satisfied their burden of
establishing ascertainability, predominance, or superiority by a
preponderance of the evidence. For these reasons, their motion for
class certification is denied. The decision is without prejudice
to the EPPs' right to file an amended motion for class
certification if warranted by the facts and applicable law as set
forth in the Memorandum.
The EPPs filed a motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of
the Defendants' expert witness, John Fritz, who opines that certain
EPP class members passed on the costs of any overcharge and
therefore did not sustain actual economic harm. As the Judge has
explained, the issue of whether recoverable damages are limited to
a class members' actual economic harm does not impact class
certification, and the Judge need not address the issue at this
stage in the litigation. In light of his denial of the EPPs'
motion for class certification, the EPP's motion to exclude Fritz's
opinions and testimony is denied as moot. The decision is without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to challenge Fritz's expert
testimony, if warranted, at a later stage in the litigation.
For the reasons set forth, Judge DuBois (1) denied the Defendants'
Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Laura Craft and Eric
Miller, (2) denied the EPPs' Motion for Class Certification without
prejudice to their right to file an amended motion if warranted by
the facts and applicable law as set forth in the Memorandum, and
(3) denied as moot the EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and
Testimony of John F. Fritz.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/5ZcdkM from Leagle.com.
MDL 2942: Court Won't Centralize 15 Business Interruption Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION PROTECTION
INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2942, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
plaintiffs' motions to centralize pretrial proceedings of 15
actions.
A full-text copy of the Court's August 12, 2020 Order and the list
of cases, are available at https://is.gd/wovBps
Judge Huvelle has also ordered the Clerk of the Panel to issue a
show cause order as to:
* the 14 actions listed on Schedule B. The show cause order
shall be captioned "In re: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,
COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation."
* the 18 actions listed on Schedule C. The show cause order
shall be captioned "In re: Cincinnati Insurance Company COVID-19
Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation."
* the 68 actions listed on Schedule D. The show cause order
shall be captioned "In re: Hartford COVID-19 Business Interruption
Protection Insurance Litigation."
* the 21 actions listed on Schedule E. The show cause order
shall be captioned "In re: Society Insurance Company COVID-19
Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation."
There are two motions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
pretrial proceedings in this litigation. The first motion is
brought by plaintiffs in the two Eastern District of Pennsylvania
actions listed on Schedule A (the Pennsylvania movants). The
Pennsylvania movants seek centralization of eleven actions in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The second motion is brought by
plaintiffs in seven actions pending in various districts (the
Illinois movants). The Illinois movants request centralization of
fifteen actions (the eleven on the first motion and five others) in
the Northern District of Illinois.
All 15 actions listed on Schedule A assert declaratory judgment
and/or breach of contract claims against plaintiffs' respective
providers of commercial property insurance. Plaintiffs allege that
these policies provide coverage for business interruption losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders
suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential
businesses. In addition to the fifteen actions on the motions, the
Panel has received notice of 263 related actions. Collectively,
these actions are pending in 48 districts and name more than a
hundred insurers.
Plaintiffs in more than 175 actions or related actions responded to
the motions. Many of these plaintiffs support centralization in
one of the two districts proposed by movants. Other plaintiffs
suggest the Northern District of California, Southern District of
Florida, the Western District of Missouri, the District of New
Jersey, and the Western District of Washington as potential
transferee districts for this litigation. Still other plaintiffs
oppose centralization or ask to be excluded from any MDL.
Plaintiffs in more than 30 actions (some of which either support or
oppose centralization in the first instance) propose that, instead
of creating the "industry-wide" MDL requested by the movants, the
Panel should centralize these insurance coverage actions on a
state-by state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. These
proposals, which were raised for the first time in the parties'
responses to the motions, encompass claims against Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London; Cincinnati Insurance Company; The
Hartford; State Farm; and Westchester Surplus Lines/Chubb. These
plaintiffs variously suggest ten districts for these narrower
MDLs.
In total, 32 insurers or insurer-groups named as defendants in the
related actions responded to the motions. Unlike plaintiffs, the
defendants uniformly oppose centralization. Several defendants, in
their Notices of Presentation or Waiver of Oral Argument, indicated
alternative support for one or more potential transferee districts.
In addition to these defendants, one non-party insurer group and
several amici curiae filed responses in opposition to
centralization.
After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Huvelle concludes
that the industry-wide centralization requested by movants will not
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The proponents of
centralization identify three core common questions:(1) do the
various government closure orders trigger coverage under the
policies; (2) what constitutes "physical loss or damage" to the
property; and (3) do any exclusions (particularly those related to
viruses) apply. These questions, though, share only a superficial
commonality. There is no common defendant in these actions --
indeed, there are no true multi-defendant cases, as the actions
involve either a single insurer or insurer-group (i.e., related
insurers operating under the same umbrella or sharing ownership
interests). Thus, there is little potential for common discovery
across the litigation. Furthermore, these cases involve different
insurance policies with different coverages, conditions,
exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses
in different industries located in different states. These
differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.
The proponents of centralization argue that the insurers use
standardized forms. Even so, here are many such "standardized"
forms in circulation, and any form used by a given insurer will
have been modified in a unique way. While the policy language for
business income and civil authority coverages maybe very similar
among the policies, seemingly minor differences in policy language
could have significant impact on the scope of coverage.
Moreover, the proposed MDL raises significant managerial and
efficiency concerns. A transferee court would have to establish a
pretrial structure to manage the hundreds of plaintiffs -- many
with disparate views of the litigation -- and more than one hundred
insurers. The court also would have to identify common policies
with identical or sufficiently similar policy language and oversee
discovery that likely will differ insurer-to-insurer. To say this
litigation would result in a complicated MDL seems an
understatement. Managing such a litigation would be an ambitious
under taking for any jurist, and implementing a pretrial structure
that yields efficiencies will take time. As counsel emphasized
during oral argument, however, time is of the essence in this
litigation. Many plaintiffs are on the brink of bankruptcy as a
result of business lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
government closure orders. An industry-wide MDL in this instance
will not promote a quick resolution of these matters.
Put simply, the MDL that movants request entails very few common
questions of fact, which are outweighed by the substantial
convenience and efficiency challenges posed by managing a
litigation involving the entire insurance industry. The
proponents' arguments that these problems can be overcome are not
persuasive. The Judge therefore denies the motions for
centralization.
The proposals for regional and state-based MDLs raised by some of
the responding plaintiffs suffer from many of the same problems as
the industry-wide motions. Although these MDLs would be smaller,
they still would involve multiple defendants with different
policies, coverages, exclusions, and endorsements. Any
efficiencies with respect to common discovery and motion practice
would be outweighed by the unique discovery and motion practice as
to each insurer. The Judge likewise denies these regional and
state-based MDLs proposals.
In contrast, the arguments for insurer-specific MDLs are more
persuasive. Such an MDL would be limited to a single insurer or
group of related insurers and thus would not entail the managerial
problems of an industry-wide MDL involving more than a hundred
insurers. The actions are more likely to involve insurance
policies utilizing the same language, endorsements, and exclusions.
Thus, there is a significant possibility that the actions will
share common discovery and pretrial motion practice. Moreover,
centralization of these actions could eliminate inconsistent
pretrial rulings with respect to the overlapping nationwide class
claims that most of the insurers face. An insurer-specific MDL
therefore could achieve the convenience and efficiency benefits
envisioned by Section 1407.
That said, the Panel will not attempt to create an insurer-specific
MDL on the present record. The proposals for insurer-specific MDLs
were made midway through the briefing on the industry-wide motions,
and no motion for an insurer-specific MDL was filed. As a result,
only a few insurers, and few plaintiffs other than the movants,
responded to the insurer-specific MDL proposals, which themselves
were often vague as to which actions would be included in a given
MDL. The Panel requires a better understanding of the factual
commonalities and differences among these actions, as well as the
efficiencies that may or may not be gained through centralization,
before creating an insurer-specific MDL.
Instead, Judge Huvelle will direct the Clerk of the Panel to issue
orders with respect to actions naming four insurers or groups of
related insurers:
1. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London;
2. Cincinnati Insurance Company;
3. the Hartford insurers; and
4. Society Insurance,
directing the parties to show cause why those actions should not be
centralized. With respect to these four insurers or insurer
groups, centralization may be warranted to eliminate duplicative
discovery and pretrial practice. Cognizant that delay should be
avoided in this litigation to the extent possible, the due date for
responses to the show cause orders will be expedited by one week to
ensure that the Panel will be able to consider the matters at its
next hearing session on September 24, 2020.
With respect to the actions in this litigation involving other
insurers, centralization does not appear appropriate. There are
alternatives to centralization available to minimize any
duplication in pretrial proceedings, including informal cooperation
and coordination of the actions. The parties also may seek to
relate actions against a common insurer in a given district before
one judge. Such alternatives appear practicable as to these
insurers, given the limited number of actions and districts
involved as to each.
MONSANTO CO: Long Beach Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF LONG BEACH, a
municipal corporation, et al., all individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. MONSANTO COMPANY; SOLUTIA INC.,
and PHARMACIA LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on September 17, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying a settlement class;
2. granting preliminary approval of class Action settlement;
3. granting approval of notice plan;
4. appointing Class Action Settlement Administrator; and
5. appointing class counsel.
The Plaintiffs include COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political
subdivision; CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
BERKELEY, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal corporation;
CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a port
district of the State of Oregon; BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political
subdivision; and MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE.
The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, it was acquired
by Bayer as part of its crop science division.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Summy, Esq.
Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq.
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave, No. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
E-mail: SSummy@baronbudd.com
cburkepickrel@baronbudd.com
Fiske@baronbudd.com
MOON JUICE: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moon Juice LLC. The
case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Moon Juice LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06968
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Moon juice is a cosmetics and food selling company. They sell
skincare products, snacks, and protein powders.[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
MORGAN STANLEY: Fails to Properly Secure Customer PII, Smith Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY M. SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06984-AT (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers,
passport numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,
account numbers, dates of birth, income, asset value and holding
information.
On July 9, 2020, the Defendant began notifying various state
Attorneys General about multiple data breaches that occurred as
early as 2016. Around the same time, the Defendant mailed a Notice
of data breach to current and former customers affected by the
breaches. In 2016, the Defendant closed two data centers and
decommissioned the computer equipment. The Defendant hired a vendor
to remove customers' data from the equipment. Subsequently, the
Defendant learned that the data was not fully "wiped" clean, and
admits that "certain devices believed to have been wiped of all
information still contained some unencrypted data." Now, according
to the Defendant, that equipment is missing.
In 2019, the Defendant disconnected and replaced multiple computer
servers in various branch locations. The old servers, which still
contained customers' data, were thought to be encrypted, but the
Defendant subsequently learned that a "software flaw" on the
servers left "previously deleted data" on the hard drives "in an
unencrypted form." Now those servers are also missing.
According to the complaint, the PII was compromised due to the
Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect customers' data including the Plaintiff. In
addition to the Defendant's failure to prevent the data breach, the
Defendant failed to detect the data breach for years, and when it
did discover the breach, it took over a year, possibly longer, to
report the breach to the affected individuals and the states'
Attorneys General.
The Plaintiff contends that he and Class Members have suffered
injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include:
(i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses
associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from
identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII;
(iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the data breach, including but not
limited to lost time, and (iv) the continued and certainly an
increased risk to their PII, which: (a) remains unencrypted and
available on the missing equipment for unauthorized third parties
to access and abuse; and (b) may remain backed up in Defendant's
possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so
long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate
measures to protect the PII.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, is a New York-headquartered
brokerage firm and investment advisor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
MOUNT LAI LLC: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mount Lai, LLC. The
case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Mount Lai, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06975
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mount Lai is a beauty brand rooted in Traditional Chinese Medicine,
who offers massage apparatus and instruments.[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
NAILS INC: Zanca Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nails Inc. USA. The
case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Nails Inc. USA, Case No. 1:20-cv-06971
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nails Inc. is an award-winning British beauty brand.[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
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Miller-Hobbs Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Lisa Miller-Hobbs, as
attorney-in fact for Daniel Hobbs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02248-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 27,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NETFLIX: Indiana Cities File Class Action for Franchise Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that four Indiana cities are suing
video-streaming services, including Netflix and Hulu, seeking to
require them to pay the same franchise fees to local governments
that cable companies must pay.
The class-action lawsuit filed in August argues that major
video-streaming services must pay a 5% franchise fee of gross
revenue to the localities where their customers reside because of
the use of internet equipment in the public right of way to
transmit programming.
The lawsuit demands the companies -- Netflix, Disney, Hulu,
DirectTV and Dish Network -- be required to pay unpaid fees for
past services and all future fees required by law, The Northwest
Indiana Times reported. It was filed by the cities of Indianapolis,
Fishers, Valparaiso and Evansville.
An estimate of how much money is owed statewide was not provided.
According to the lawsuit, cable companies have abided by the Video
Service Franchises Act's requirements and handed over the fees. The
money is typically paid by cable subscribers as an additional
charge on their monthly bills.
Records maintained by the Valparaiso clerk-treasurer show the city
received $446,000 in video franchise fees last year, compared with
$476,000 in 2017 -- a decline likely to an increasing number of
residents "cutting the cord" by replacing their cable television
service with subscriptions to streaming services.
City attorney Patrick Lyp said the lawsuit will level the playing
field so all companies delivering video programming in Valparaiso
and across the state pay the fees.
Court records show the streaming service companies have not yet
filed a response to the lawsuit.
A similar lawsuit seeking to require streaming services pay local
franchise fees still is pending in Missouri after being filed last
year by the city of Creve Coeur. [GN]
NEVADA: Judgment to Force State to Reform Public Defender System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that in January 2017, Jason
Enox was charged with drug-related offenses that could have
resulted in Enox spending the rest of his life in prison. However,
the defense attorney appointed by the state of Nevada allegedly
failed to take the case seriously and did so little work he was
chastised by the judge.
Those allegations were part of a class action that attorneys at the
American Civil Liberties Union and O'Melveny & Myers LLP brought in
2017 on behalf of Enox and other indigent defendants. This month,
those defendants won preliminary approval for a consent judgment
that would force the state to reform its public defender system,
which advocates say has been broken for years.
Combined with recent state legislation, attorneys said that they
were hopeful that the agreement, which includes elimination of flat
fees and minimum standards for performance, would result in real
change for low-income defendants in Nevada.
"For our criminal justice system to be fair and to be something in
which all people have confidence, it has to work for everyone,"
said Maggie Carter, an O'Melveny partner with experience as both a
defense attorney and a prosecutor. "We think [this case] is an
important step forward."
Advocates say that Nevada was once a trailblazer when it came to
right to counsel, with the state Supreme Court ruling in 1877 that
defendants unable to afford an attorney should have an attorney
appointed for them, almost a century before the U.S. Supreme Court
came to the same conclusion in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.
However, the modern public defender system operates on a
county-by-county level, an approach that leaves defendants in many
parts of the state out in the cold, the lawsuit alleged.
In a 2018 report on Nevada, the Sixth Amendment Center found that
in most rural counties, there was no public defender office, but
that instead counties contracted with private attorneys for a fixed
annual fee. Often, these attorneys are also responsible for
covering case-related expenses, which disincentivizes attorneys
from going the extra mile for clients.
Overall, the county-by-county approach had resulted in a variety of
problems in many counties, the report found, such as a lack of
independence for appointed attorneys; attorneys who had little
training or supervision; a lack of support services for clients,
including translation services; attorneys who were largely absent
after the initial appearance; a lack of independent investigations
by defense attorneys; and excessive caseloads.
There is also little to no oversight by the state, and almost no
guidance given to cities for how to provide representation to
defendants in municipal courts, the report said.
For low-income Nevadans, this could all have very real
consequences. For instance, even after the judge in Enox's case
replaced his original attorney with a new one, the new attorney
still allegedly did not hire an investigator to conduct an
independent investigation, even after the court authorized the
funds for it.
His new attorney also did not make a "meaningful" effort for Enox
to be released from pretrial detention in order to attend his
father's funeral, according to the complaint.
Enox spent a total of 20 months in jail awaiting trial, the
complaint said, during which time he lost his job and was forced to
sell his belongings, and his house was destroyed because he could
not properly fight a property dispute. He eventually entered a plea
agreement in the case.
"The promise of Gideon has never been realized in many
jurisdictions and rural Nevada is one of them," Emma Andersson, an
attorney with the ACLU, told Law360 in an email.
Andersson said that the national ACLU and the ACLU of Nevada
decided to pursue litigation once it became clear that there wasn't
political will in the state to fix some of these issues, despite
ample evidence of a problem.
They teamed up with Franny Forsman, the former federal public
defender for Nevada and also sought out an outside law firm with
whom to partner. Andersson said she was introduced to O'Melveny
through a mutual contact. The team jumped in "enthusiastically,"
she said and was involved in the case from the prefiling phase.
The state maintained that its practices did not violate the Sixth
Amendment, which guarantees the rights of criminal defendants.
The attorneys for the proposed class moved for class certification
early, but the state took the unusual step of requesting a year of
class discovery. Andersson said she considered it to be "a delay
tactic."
"The state didn't need a year's worth of class discovery to be able
to oppose the motion," she said in an email.
Overall, the attorneys said, the team collaborated well throughout
the case. Forsman and the ACLU of Nevada provided insight into the
local situation in Nevada, including local politics, while
Andersson and her colleagues at the national ACLU brought
perspective from similar work in other states. Meanwhile, O'Melveny
provided the deep bench necessary to keep the suit moving.
In 2018, the case took a positive turn, attorneys said, when a new
administration was voted into office. Republican Gov. Brian
Sandoval was term-limited, and the Republican attorney general
chose to run for governor, rather than running for re-election as
AG. Instead, Democrats took both offices,
The new administration had a very different approach to the case
and agreed that reforms were necessary, attorneys said.
The parties eventually reached an agreement for a consent judgment,
in which the state agrees to hit certain benchmarks for
improvement, with a court-appointed monitor there to ensure that
the goals are met.
Attorneys said that, combined with recent action by the state
Legislature to create a statewide Department of Indigent Defense
Services to set standards and provide oversight, the consent
judgment will lead to low-income defendants getting the quality
legal representation to which they are entitled.
However, attorneys added, it remains to be seen if the Legislature
will also hand over the funding necessary to ensure that things go
smoothly. The hope is that the consent judgment will make it more
likely that they will.
"We expect that the ongoing oversight required in the consent
judgment will continue to put needed pressure on the Legislature to
properly fund the system and ensure recent changes have real teeth
and real staying power," Andersson wrote.
For Carter and counsel Matt Cowan of O'Melveny, the opportunity to
effect this kind of change was "very rewarding."
"Making a real difference at the state or even national level is
something that is engrained in our firm values," Cowan said. He
also appreciated the chance for the firm to work on the case from
the beginning, rather than coming in at a later stage, and getting
to see it through from start to finish. "It was such a positive
experience."
Carter added that for her, having worked on both the prosecution
and defense side of the criminal justice system, she saw the issue
at stake in the litigation as vitally important. She also enjoyed
the chance to take on such a large project.
"Across the firm we do pro bono engagements of all shapes and
sizes, and this case is certainly on the large end," she said.
"It's a piece of impact litigation that we got involved in
prefiling and took all the way to settlement. It's definitely
special in that way." [GN]
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Wilson 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 July 29, 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. 20-2828, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Jackuline Wilson 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
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Tuition
--------------------------------------------------------
James Pollard, writing for The Daily Northwestern, reports that
Northwestern University has been sued in federal court over its
decision to charge full tuition in Spring Quarter while shifting
entirely to remote classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according
to a lawsuit filed on Aug. 14.
The plaintiff, Nathaniel Polley, is a recent graduate who seeks
"for himself and the putative class members, a return of a prorated
portion of the tuition, fees and other related costs, proportionate
to the diminished value of online classes, campus services and
access to campus facilities," according to the lawsuit, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
When Northwestern announced the cancellation of all classes from
March 31 until April 3, and later shifted all in-person courses
online, the lawsuit alleges the school could no longer offer the
services its students and parents paid for.
Polley seeks to represent all people who paid tuition or fees to
attend the University "when classes and/or coursework were limited
in whole or in part to online attendance as a result of or in
connection with COVID-19," according to a news release. Polley was
not immediately available for comment.
One of the student's attorneys, Yvette Golan, said that without the
on-campus component, Northwestern's online-only classes are not as
valuable as its in-person classes, and therefore not worth the
tuition the school charged.
"As Northwestern's own marketing materials make clear, its students
pay the school's high tuition and fees to be on campus, to meet
face-to-face with classmates and professors, and to take advantage
of the facilities that prestigious institutions like Northwestern
offer," Golan said in the news release.
The University does not comment on pending litigation, a University
spokesperson said in an email to The Daily. [GN]
NWPA PIZZA: Chludzinski Seeks OK of Class Action Notice
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Phillip Chludzinski,On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. NWPA Pizza, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00163-CB (Filed ), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order authorizing him to send notice of the pendency
of this action to his similarly-situated co-workers:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at the
Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores between the date three
years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date
of the Court's Order approving notice."
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at the Defendants' Domino's Pizza franchise
stores. The Plaintiff asserts that their employment terms with the
Defendants result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery drivers
are all employed according to the same terms. First, drivers
receive either minimum wage or minimum wage minus a tip credit
while delivering pizzas and other food items for Defendants.
Second, drivers are required to use their own vehicles in making
deliveries. And third, Defendants fail to properly reimburse
delivery drivers for automobile expenses incurred in making these
deliveries.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
ONESPAN INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on behalf of investors that purchased OneSpan Inc.
(NASDAQ: OSPN) securities between May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 19, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On August 4, 2020, OneSpan postponed its second-quarter 2020
earnings release and conference call by one week, attributing the
delay to prior period revenue recognition problems relating to
certain software license contracts spread out over the quarters
from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020.
OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract assets that
originated from a portion of these contracts in prior periods were
not properly accounted for in subsequent periods, which caused
overstatements of revenue."
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $0.46 per
share, or 1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share on August 4, 2020.
Then, on August 11, 2020, OneSpan disclosed that it would not
timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30,
2020, with the SEC; reported that same quarter year-over-year
revenues had declined; and withdrew its full-year 2020 earnings
guidance, which the Company had affirmed one quarter earlier.
On this news, the Company's common share price fell $12.36 per
share, or 39.62%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased OneSpan securities during the Class Period, are a
long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation
to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. [GN]
ORION INT'L: Class Certification Denial in Ascencio Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NISSA ASCENCIO AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ORION INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendant
and Appellee, Case No. DA 19-0524 (Mont.), the Supreme Court of
Montana affirmed the order of the Fourth Judicial District Court,
Missoula County, denying with prejudice Ascensio's second motion to
certify class.
Ascencio asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying
certification of a class action based on her failure to establish
the elements of superiority and predominance pursuant to M. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3). Alternatively, Ascencio requests remand for further
discovery. Since the 2018 decision, Ascencio insists that three
events have occurred that are relevant to her second motion to
certify.
First, Ascencio deposed Kyle Whitney, who testified that he was
employed by Orion and handled "day to day operations" beginning in
2014. He also testified that his parents were the owners of Orion
and his father "was always the manager." Whitney testified that
Orion ceased doing business in April 2016 and his parents moved out
of Montana to Florida. Second, the District Court denied Orion's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking a ruling that, as a
matter of law, its inclusion of obsolete adverse information in
Ascencio's background report was negligent and not willful. The
District Court concluded that the issue must be resolved by the
trier of fact. Third, discovery closed.
On May 3, 2019, the District Court postponed a settlement
conference to allow Ascencio to move to re-open discovery. The
District Court gave Ascencio specific instructions in a separate
order on April 1, 2019, detailing its requirements in the event of
a motion to re-open discovery.
The Order warned Ascencio that she must comply with express
instructions, including proposals for deadlines for the remaining
case milestones, including the exchange of final witness and
exhibit lists, final pretrial motions, and the final pretrial
order, or risk summary denial. The District Court gave Ascencio
the opportunity to extend discovery, but her subsequent motion did
not comply with the District Court's express, substantive
instructions regarding the request. On July 8, 2019, the District
Court denied Ascencio's motion for additional discovery. The
District Court again denied Ascencio's motion to certify class on
the grounds that she failed to establish the necessary criteria of
predominance and superiority pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).
A party seeking class certification must satisfy the four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequate representation and the two criteria of predominance
and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). Where a party fails to make a
sufficient showing regarding one prong of the test, there is no
need to address the other prong. The Montana Supreme Court finds
that Ascencio has not satisfied the superiority criteria in the
case.
Ascencio fails to argue any new substantive facts related to the
superiority element that would change the Court's previous holding.
She again argues that a class action is superior because other
litigation methods are unavailable to the class members since their
claims would result in only small recoveries and pooling their
resources is the only practical way to pursue these claims.
Ascencio fails to explain with record evidence why a class action
would be superior to other methods since, based on her own claim
seeking significant monetary damages, it is unlikely that other
putative class members would be limited to small recoveries. She
has failed to support her allegations with evidence and demonstrate
why prosecuting this case as a class action is superior to
individual actions.
Finally, Ascencio's request for remand for further discovery fails.
A trial court is allowed broad discretion in enforcing its own
rules. Discovery had already closed in the case at the time
Ascencio motioned to re-open discovery. The District Court's April
1, 2019 order specifically warned Ascencio that she must comply
with its express instructions regarding a motion to re-open
discovery. Ascencio failed to comply with the District Court's
instructions. Accordingly, the Montana Supreme Court declines to
disturb the District Court's interpretation of its own requirements
for motions to re-open discovery after it had closed.
The Montana Supreme Court has determined to decide the case
pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of the Internal Operating
Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. The appeal presents
no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does
not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent.
Accordingly, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Montana Supreme Court's June 2, 2020
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/pb26UZ from Leagle.com.
Christopher W. Froines, Froines Law Office, Inc., Missoula,
Montana, for Appellants.
Bradley J. Luck -- bjluck@GARLINGTON.COM -- Tessa A. Keller --
takeller@GARLINGTON.COM -- Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP,
Missoula, Montana, for Appellee.
PETER NYGARD: Sons File Lawsuit Following Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sawa and Caroline Barghout, writing for CBC News, report
that two of Peter Nygard's sons launched a new lawsuit filed on
Aug. 16, saying their fashion executive father set them up to be
raped by his girlfriend -- a "known sex worker" -- when they were
teens.
Nygard, 79, is a Winnipeg-based clothing manufacturer. His
companies, in the past, were worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Dozens of women have recently come forward alleging he raped them.
The civil lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. It names three of Nygard's
companies. His sons, who are not identified, are seeking an
undisclosed amount of damages and have requested a jury trial.
Their claims have not been proven in court. Nygard's lawyer has
dismissed them as lies.
"Hopefully, my experience will help other people be able to speak
the truth about what's happened to them," the older of the two sons
said in an exclusive interview with CBC News.
He is referred to as John Doe 2 in the lawsuit.
"We need to talk about this."
As the man is a victim of alleged sexual abuse, CBC News has agreed
not to publish his identity.
"It's about backing up the other people who are being called
liars," he said.
More allegations
Nygard has been accused of raping or sexually assaulting 57 women
in a class-action lawsuit filed earlier this year in New York.
CBC News has spoken directly with 10 women who say they were raped
or sexually assaulted by Nygard.
Nygard, through his spokespeople, has said they are all lying.
In the past, Nygard has been listed as one of the richest
Canadians. His empire once included a palatial estate in the
Bahamas with administrative and production facilities in Winnipeg,
Toronto, Los Angeles and a world headquarters in New York.
In March of 2020, nine of his companies were forced into
receivership by the courts in Manitoba. Nygard's companies owe
millions of dollars to several creditors.
New legal action
The latest lawsuit was filed on Aug. 16 in New York by the same law
firm that launched the class action lawsuit.
According to the new lawsuit, the sons were raped 14 years apart by
the same woman.
The most recent alleged assault took place in the summer of 2018.
John Doe No. 1 was 14 years old at the time.
The lawsuit says his father "lured, enticed and transported," him
from California to Nygard's residence in Winnipeg. Both sons are
U.S. citizens.
It says Nygard's girlfriend, referred to as Jane Roe in the
lawsuit, was instructed by Nygard to "make a man" out of his son,
saying he was a virgin at the time.
The legal age of consent in Canada was 16.
The second assault alleged in the lawsuit took place in 2004. John
Doe No. 2 was 15 years old. It took place at Nygard's home in the
Bahamas.
'Confusion' and 'shame'
According to the lawsuit, that would have been considered a sexual
assault in the Bahamas.
John Doe 2 said, for him there was "confusion" and "shame" and
"very little understanding," at the time.
"It's one of those things that when you look back at it I see the
pattern of it -- that it happened with my younger brother -- that's
when it struck me. That's pretty low. So after the fact and after
more information has come out it's affected me a little bit more."
The lawsuit says the Nygard company and its employees helped
facilitate and cover up the alleged rapes.
It says Nygard used company employees and money to arrange and pay
for his sons to travel to his homes where the alleged rapes took
place. And it says company money was used to pay Nygard's
girlfriend, "a full time sex worker", to assault his sons.
In the past, Nygard has called accusations against him lies paid
for by his former neighbour in the Bahamas. The two wealthy men
have repeatedly sued each other in a battle that began as a
property dispute more than a decade ago.
'My client is shocked by these allegations'
On Aug. 16, Nygard's lawyer, Jay Prober, said the latest
allegations are more lies.
"My client is shocked by these allegations, which he says are
completely false. He categorically denies them. You'll note that
the allegations are really nothing more than generalities. Details
are sadly lacking. You might ask why that is. And it's clear from
my client because he says it never happened."
Nygard's sons, however, stand by their claims.
John Doe 2 says he's looking for "justice" and hopes "some sort of
weight is lifted off some of the [other] victims' shoulders."
"I'm hopeful that whether it's this lawsuit or the other lawsuits
that there will be some truth served because I don't feel like
anyone should get away with this type of behaviour and abuse."
No trial date has been set. [GN]
PROFOUND AESTHETIC: Nisbett Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Profound Aesthetic
LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Profound
Aesthetic LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06945 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Profound Aesthetic is a contemporary clothing brand that balances
street wear and high fashion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
QUTOUTIAO INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Burnham v. Qutoutiao Inc.,
et al., (Case No. 20-cv-06707) on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: QTT): (a) American Depositary Shares
("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering");
and/or (b) securities between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Qutoutiao investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/qutoutiao-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In September 2018, the Company completed its IPO, selling 13.8
million ADSs at $7.00 per share.
On December 10, 2019, Wolfpack Research published a report,
alleging among other things, that the Company had overstated its
revenues by recording non-existent advances from advertising
customers. Moreover, the report alleged that Qutoutiao replaced its
third-party advertising agent with a related party, thereby
bypassing the agent's oversight and allowing the Company to
"perpetrate the unmitigated ad fraud that [Wolfpack] observed in
[its] sample."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, nearly 4%, to
close at $2.86 per share on December 11, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume
On July 15, 2020, hosts of a consumer rights gala stated that
Qutoutiao had allowed ads on its platform promoting exaggerated or
impossible claims from weight-loss products. For example, one such
ad offered free weight-loss products valued at $14,300 that would
help users lose more than 30 pounds a month.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.85, or 23%, to
close at $2.84 per share on July 16, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Qutoutiao replaced its
advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing
third-party oversight of the content and quality of the
advertisements; (2) that the Company placed advertisements on its
mobile app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and
thus were considered false advertisements under applicable
regulations; (3) that, as a result, the Company would face
increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) that, as
a result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely
to decline; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased Qutoutiao securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]
RUBY PRINCESS: COVID-19 Survivor Seeks Answers Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nic Healey, writing for ABC Western Plains, reports that a Ruby
Princess passenger who contracted COVID-19 says he accepts the New
South Wales Premier's apology but wants more answers.
Gladys Berejiklian has apologised "unreservedly" for the
"unimaginable loss" caused by NSW Health's handling of the outbreak
on the cruise ship.
Jayson O'Brien, of Wellington, NSW, told ABC Western Plains someone
had to be held to account.
"To me words are pretty cheap, aren't they?" he said.
The 79-year old was discharged from Dubbo Base Hospital in April
after recovering from a COVID-19 infection.
Mr. O'Brien was one of the passengers allowed to disembark from the
ship in Sydney.
In a viral video he can be seen receiving a standing ovation from
hospital staff, who he referred to as "blue angels", as he leaves
the facility.
Calls for disciplinary action
Mr. O'Brien is part of a Federal Court class action against the
owners of the Ruby Princess, but he said financial gain was not the
point.
"I'm not after money," he said.
"I care that someone has to take responsibility for allowing
thousands of passengers off that ship without telling them what was
happening."
Mr O'Brien said the misinformation given to passengers is
inexcusable.
"I was told while still on board that five passengers had gone to
sick bay, but they just had the flu," he said.
"When we got home we didn't know anything.
"We disembarked on the Thursday -- my son and daughter got tested
on the Saturday and tested positive.
Apology accepted
Mr. O'Brien said while he accepted the apology, the full truth
still needs to come out.
"The buck stops with the Premier -- I understand that," he said.
The NSW Health Minister has also apologised to those whose lives
were affected by the handling of the cruise ship.
Brad Hazzard said lessons had been learnt, but the report did not
recommend disciplinary action.
"It's a one in 100 year pandemic, and the health staff are trying
really hard to do everything possible to keep people safe," he
said.
"If you look at what's happening in other parts of the world, if
you look at what's happening in Victoria, then clearly NSW Health
staff are doing a very significant job to keep us safe."
NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller confirmed that a criminal
investigation into what happened was underway, but would not say
whether charges would be laid.
"There are tens of thousands of documents that have been sourced,"
Mr Fuller said. [GN]
SAFE HAVEN: Sporven Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SPORVEN, On behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, v. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-03032-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act;
2. authorizing the Plaintiff to send notice of this case by
U.S. Mail and electronic mail to:
"all current and former inside sales representatives
employed by Defendant at any location outside of Kansas
City, Missouri, at any time at any time from August 7,
2017 to the present";
3. requiring the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff's counsel
with a computer readable data file containing the name, last known
telephone number, dates of employment, last known address, and last
known email address for each such current and former inside sales
representative employed at any location other than North Kansas
City at any time at any time from August 7, 2017, to the present";
5. designating Taylor Sporven as the collective class
representative;
6. approving the Plaintiff's counsel to act as collective
class counsel in this matter; and
7. granting other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Safe Haven is a security and investigations company that provides
burglar protection and smoke detection services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc N. Middleton, Esq.
Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
Megan Lowe Stiles, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
5821 NW 72nd Street
Kansas City, MO 64151
Telephone: (816) 581-4040
Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
E-mail: m.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com
r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
m.stiles@cornerstonefirm.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: Dow Seeks to Certify Two Rule 23 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN DOW, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, A LIBERTY MUTUAL COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-00031-SPW (D. Mont.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying two related classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Those two classes are:
Class 1 -- Breach-of-Contract Class:
Every Montana property owner with a Safeco homeowners
insurance policy: a. Who suffered a covered structural
residential loss from February 6, 2012, 1 to the date the
class is certified; and b. Where Safeco accepted liability
and paid general contractor overhead and profit on some
portions of the structural loss; but c. Where Safeco did not
pay general contractor overhead and profit on all portions of
the structural loss.
Class 2 -- Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act
Class:
Every member of Class 1 from February 2, 2018, 2 to the date
the class is certified.
Safeco, a member of Liberty Mutual Group, is an American insurance
company. It held the naming rights to the Seattle Mariners'
baseball stadium Safeco Field from its opening in 1999 through the
end of the 2018 season.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean M. Morris, Esq.
Jesse Kodadek, Esq
Martin Rogers, Esq
Care Kealey, Esq
WORDEN T. HANE P.C.
321 W. Broadway, Suite 300
Missoula, MT 59802
Telephone: (406) 721-3400
E-mail: smorris@wordenthane.com
jkodadek@wordenthane.com
mrogers@wordenthane.com
ckealey@wordenthane.com
SIMS GROUP: Sanft Seeks FLSA Collective Status
----------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as PAEA SANFT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIMS GROUP USA
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-08154-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification and approving a 60-day
opt-in period for the following collective pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act:
"all individuals who are or previously were employed by
the Defendant on an hourly basis, were in the employee
union, and worked over forty hours in a week at any time
during the period beginning October 31, 2016 to the date
the order granting this motion is entered";
2. requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-ins
within 14 days of the grant of conditional certification
by providing a list in electronic and importable format,
of the names, job titles, addresses, telephone numbers,
e-mail addresses, dates of employment, location of
employment, and date of birth, of each potential opt-in;
and
3. approving the attached proposed form of notice and
authorizing it to be sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to:
"all potential opt-in plaintiffs, along with a shortened
text message notifying each individual that the notice
form was mailed and emailed; and
4. allowing a reminder notice via email and text to be sent
40 days thereafter to anyone that did not respond.
Sims Group was founded in 1987. The company's line of business
includes the assembling, breaking up, sorting, and wholesale
distribution of scrap and waste materials.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: 248-355-0300
Facsimile: 248-436-8453
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
crash@sommerspc.com
SOUTHERN METHODIST: Former Football Player Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Holleran, writing for The Spun, reports that the state of
higher learning in America is currently in a bit of dismay.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced just about everything in this
country to change. Few things have been more affected than schools,
especially colleges and universities.
Students do not want to pay tens of thousands of dollars to learn
online, but in many cases, that's what's happening now. We also
have student-athletes on scholarships unable to play their
respective sports this fall.
One former college football player is seeking retribution.
A former Southern Methodist University kicker has filed a lawsuit
against his university. It's a potential class-action lawsuit that
is seeking pro-rata tuition and fees after more than 50 percent of
the spring 2020 semester was taken online.
This likely will not be the last lawsuit we see like this. Higher
education is a big business and it hasn't been able to operate like
its customers want it to.
Hogan, a 6-foot-1 kicker, is a Keller, Texas native. He began his
college football career at Houston, before transferring to West
Virginia. Hogan ended his college football career at SMU.
The SMU football program is coming off a strong 2019 season. The
Mustangs went 10-3, losing to FAU in the Boca Raton Bowl. [GN]
STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Staar Surgical Company.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
STAA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=8741&wire=1
Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
STAA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2020 - August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=8741&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Staar
Surgical Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
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. [GN]
SUNLESS SOLUTIONS: Zanca Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunless Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Sunless Solutions Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-06969 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sunless Solutions is a custom spray tanning studio in Southern New
Hampshire dedicated solely to UV-Free sunless spray tanning.[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
SUNOCO INC: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Decision in Cline Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco,
INC. (R&M) filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS
MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Case No. 6:17-CV-00313-JAG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma,
Muskogee.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., denied Sunoco's motion to stay the case
pending its appeal of the District Court's class certification
ruling to the Tenth Circuit.
Mr. Cline owns a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in
Oklahoma. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing &
Terminals, L.P. ("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's
wells. Oklahoma law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to
Mr. Cline. If Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline
interest on the payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act. Mr. Cline has sued Sunoco for
paying his production proceeds late without paying the required
interest.
On Oct. 3, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Cline's motion to maintain a
class action on behalf of other owners whom Sunoco paid late and
did not pay interest. On Oct. 8, 2019, Sunoco filed a motion to
stay the case pending its appeal of the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Tenth Circuit. On Oct. 17, 2019,
Sunoco filed its appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as Cline, et al. v. Sunoco, Inc.
(R&M), Case No. 20-7055, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Docketing statement is due on September 10, 2020 for Sunoco
Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M);
-- Transcript order form is due on September 10, 2020, for
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc.
(R&M); and
-- Notice of appearance is due on September 10, 2020 for Perry
Cline, Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M).[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Brooke A. Churchman, Esq.
Winn Cutler, Esq.
Trey Duck, Esq.
Ross Leonoudakis, Esq.
Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON
3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
Building B, Suite 350B
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (903) 645-7333
E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com
lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
bchurchman@nixlaw.com
winncutler@nixlaw.com
tduck@nixlaw.com
rossl@nixlaw.com
dpate@nixlaw.com
- and -
Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
Emily Nash Kitch, Esq.
Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
BARNES & LEWIS
128 West Hefner Road
Oklahoma City, OK 73114
Telephone: (405) 843-0363
E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com
ekitch@barneslewis.com
plewis@barneslewis.com
- and -
Michael Burrage, Esq.
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 16-7800
E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
- and -
Paula Jantzen, Esq.
Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
Phillip G. Whaley, Esq.
RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
400 North Walnut Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 239-6040
E-mail: pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com
jryan@ryanwhaley.com
pryan@ryanwhaley.com
pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com
- and -
Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
SMOLEN LAW
611 South Detroit
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 777-4529
- and -
James Edward Warner, III, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON
512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 206
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
E-mail: jwarner@nixlaw.com
- and -
Susan R. Whatley, Esq.
NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, TX 75638
Telephone: (903) 645-7333
E-mail: swhatley@nixlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P.
and SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) are represented by:
Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY
6301 North Western Avenue, Suite 250
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 702-9900
E-mail: MChristiansen@ELBattorneys.com
- and -
Rebecca J. Cole, Esq.
Matthew Dekovich, Esq.
Daniel Mead McClure, Esq.
Kevin W. Yankowsky, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
E-mail: rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com
matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com
dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
kevin.yankowsky@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Mark Emery, Esq.
Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20001-4501
Telephone: (202) 662-0200
E-mail: mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com
jonathan.franklin@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Emma Perry, Esq.
Robert D. Woods, Esq.
R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
YETTER COLEMAN
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-8000
E-mail: eperry@yettercoleman.com
rwoods@yettercoleman.com
pyetter@yettercoleman.com
TC BAUER COMPANY: Faces Zanca Suit in New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TC Bauer Company. The
case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TC Bauer Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-06973
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TC Bauer Company manufactures in small batches gourmet food and
health products.[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
TEAM INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TEAM INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-06962 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.kaloric.com/,and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of his rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is a home appliance manufacturing company that owns
and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Weber Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Weber, on behalf of herself and all other current and
former non-exempt tipped employees v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE MANAGEMENT
CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-01317-LA (E.D. Wis., Aug. 27, 2020), seeks
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived current and former non-exempt
tipped employees of their wages earned for all compensable work
performed each workweek by (1) failing to compensate said employees
with overtime pay by incorrectly calculating said employees'
regular rate(s) of pay and/or total overtime wages due and owing
during workweeks when said employees worked in excess of 40 hours,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to compensate
said employees with lawful minimum wages in violation of the FLSA;
and (3) claiming a tip credit for the difference between the
Plaintiff's hourly rate(s) of pay and the mandated statutory
minimum wage rate of pay, but failing to obtain signed tip
declarations by the Plaintiff each pay period during which the
Defendant claimed the tip credit.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid Server employee working at the Defendant's Appleton,
Wisconsin location.
The Defendant owned, operated, managed, and maintained a restaurant
or physical location in the State of Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, 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
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
THERADOME INC: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THERADOME, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06959-LJL (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.theradome.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 website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is a hair growth treatment company that owns and
operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
TIGER BRANDS: Sells Processed Meats Business Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nqobile Dludla, writing for Reuters, reports that South African
food producer Tiger Brands said on Aug. 18 it will sell its
processed meats business through two separate deals for a combined
428 million rand ($24.7 million).
The disposal of the business, which was closed temporarily in 2018
after the world's biggest listeriosis outbreak, is part of a
strategic review initiated before that outbreak and concluded that
the business was "not an ideal fit" within the group's portfolio.
Molare Proprietary Limited will buy the abattoir business at
Olifantsfontein while the meat processing factories at Germiston,
Polokwane and Pretoria will be acquired by Silver Blade Abattoir
Proprietary Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Country Bird
Holdings, Tiger Brands said.
Molare, one of South Africa's largest piggery businesses and one of
the main suppliers to the abattoir operation, will pay 117 million
rand for its acquisition while Silver Blade will pay 311 million
rand for the factories.
"One of the major outcomes we would have achieved by selling the
businesses as going concerns is that the jobs of almost 1,000
employees will be safeguarded," said Tiger Brands Chief Executive
Noel Doyle.
The company is facing a class action lawsuit over its role in the
listeriosis outbreak, which killed more than 200 people in South
Africa and was traced back to a factory run by Tiger Brands-owned
Enterprise Foods.
Tiger Brands said that any potential liability under the class
action will not transfer to the new owners.
As part of the agreements, the company indemnifies the purchasers
against any potential liability that may arise on conclusion of the
legal process, Tiger Brands said. ($1 = 17.3430 rand) [GN]
TRALEE AFFORDABLE: Davis Seeks to Certify 2 Settlement Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE DAVIS, v. TRALEE
AFFORDABLE PANTHER LLC d/b/a DEERFIELD CROSSING APARTMENTS and RAM
PARTNERS, LLC , Case No. 1:19-cv-00349-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a collection letter class for the
purpose of the proposed class action settlement;
2. certifying an eviction fee class for the purpose
of the proposed class action settlement;
3. appointing Class Counsel; and
4. approving the content, form, and manner of notice proposed
to be sent to "all members of the Settlement Class".
The Defendant operates an "apartment for rent" business.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
PATRICK M. WALLACE
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: scott@whitfieldbryson.com
pat@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 526 0450
Facsimile: (919) 882 8763
E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
TWEEZERMAN INT'L: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TWEEZERMAN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06952-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.tweezerman.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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is a beauty tools company that owns and operates the
Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Migrant Children Expulsion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Crime Report, citing Courthouse News Service, reports that
three nonprofit groups filed a class action against the Trump
administration's controversial use of a COVID-19 emergency health
order to expel migrant children out of the U.S., saying that the
children are denied the usual immigration protections in spite of
showing no signs of the disease. The American Civil Liberties
Union, Texas Civil Rights Project and Oxfam America sued in federal
court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of a 16-year-old Guatemalan
boy who entered the U.S. alone to flee persecution as an indigenous
Mayan. He claims his family faced death threats due to his father's
political opinions and the boy's refusal to join a gang. The boy is
in federal custody in the McAllen, Tx., area.
The lawsuit says the class action claims the expulsion process is
being carried out in secret and, that the children are supposed to
be taken to shelters run by the Department of Health and Human
Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement for assignment with
lawyers and child advocates and matching with relatives already in
the U.S. while their asylum cases are pending. The suit says more
than 2,000 children have been expelled under a process unjustified
by public health concerns. The groups say the public health
argument for the expulsions is further undermined by the Trump
administration's continuing to allow large numbers of non-migrants
into the U.S. -- "essential" travelers that include truck drivers,
students, emergency responders and military members. The lawsuit
comes one month after a Texas Civil Rights Project attorney went
viral on social media entering a Hampton Inn in McAllen where
migrants were being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
contractors for expulsion. {GN]
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders COVID Test for Mesa Verde Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Plevin, writing for Palm Springs Desert Sun, reports that
amid a coronavirus outbreak at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center
in Bakersfield, a federal judge has ordered U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officials to immediately test all people
detained at the facility.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria on Aug. 14 ordered ICE officials
to administer COVID-19 tests that provide rapid results to everyone
detained at Mesa Verde who had not already tested positive.
As of Aug. 15, 54 of the 106 people detained at Mesa Verde had
tested positive for the virus, according to Emi MacLean with the
San Francisco Public Defender's Office, which is representing the
detainees in a class-action lawsuit challenging conditions at the
facility during the pandemic. Of those, "multiple people" are
hospitalized, she said.
Chhabria also ordered that every staff member entering the facility
should be tested for COVID-19 as of Aug. 15, and that each be
subsequently tested once a week until further notice. Any staff
member who declines testing should not enter the facility, he
said.
The facility is run by the GEO Group, a private company, under
contract with the federal government. More than 15 GEO staff have
tested positive for the virus, with eight staff members currently
out of work due to the illness, MacLean said.
"The situation for those at Mesa Verde is dire," MacLean said in a
statement. "There is no other way to say this: We are in crisis.
And ICE is clearly unwilling or unable to do what needs to be done
to protect people in its custody from the threat of a deadly
pandemic."
Gabriel Archer, a spokesperson for ICE, declined to comment on the
situation at Mesa Verde citing the ongoing litigation.
Judge: ICE has 'lost the right to be trusted'
Immigrants detained at Mesa Verde, along with attorneys
representing them in the class-action suit, have for months warned
that COVID-19 could tear through the 400-bed detention center. They
have warned that the most likely sources of an outbreak would be
people newly booked into the facility or staff members who live in
the Central Valley, whichhas seen a significant increase in cases
recently.
Chhabria has repeatedly chastised ICE for its inadequate testing of
detainees. The judge's criticism of ICE grew stronger this month,
as he granted a motion for a temporary restraining order requiring
the federal agency to administer rapid tests — an order that
attorneys on Aug. 14 said ICE had failed to comply with.
In the Aug. 6 order, Chhabria said ICE officials had purposefully
avoided widespread testing of staff and people detained at the
facility, and said the agency had jeopardized the health of
detainees, staff and the community at large.
He pointed to documents unearthed as part of the lawsuit,
indicating that while officials at Mesa Verde received COVID-19
testing kits in May, they decided to limit the scope of testing "as
much as possible." Alexander Pham of ICE's San Francisco Field
Office explained the directive in an email, saying that widespread
testing -- and guidelines to separate those who test positive,
negative, have pending results and refuse testing -- could put
"constraints . . . on our housing resources."
The documents also indicate that ICE tried to limit testing of
staff, too. An email from Mesa Verde warden Nathan Allen said ICE
"would rather not" test Mesa Verde staff, as positive results could
impede the agency's immigration enforcement functions and require
actions at the facility, including "possible dorm cohorts and
detainee testing protocols."
The paper trail also shows that guards were encouraged to work,
even if they could have been exposed to the virus. In a July 1
email, a GEO human resources manager informed Allen,the warden,
that a guard had called to say that her husband had tested positive
for COVID-19 and her father-in-law was on life support due to the
virus. The manager said she explained to the guard that, "if she is
symptom-free then she can come to work as long as she wears her
[Personal Protective Equipment] and stays 6 feet away."
Chhabria said ICE cannot be trusted to protect people's safety.
"The defendants, having responded to the health crisis in such a
cavalier fashion (even in the face of litigation and a string of
court orders), have lost the credibility to complain that the
relief requested by the plaintiffs is too rigid or burdensome," he
wrote in the Aug. 6 order. "The defendants have also lost the right
to be trusted that they will accomplish on their own what the
plaintiffs contend requires a court order to ensure."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California alleges
that a similar situation played out at the Adelanto ICE Processing
Center in San Bernardino County in May. It alleges that about 1,900
test kits -- enough to test all detainees and staff members -- were
sent to the facility, but ICE refused to allow the vast majority of
them to be used.
The ACLU alleges that GEO planned to "begin offering testing to all
staff and all detainees" on the day the test kits arrived, but ICE
halted the plan. It alleges that Gabriel Valdez, the ICE officer in
charge of Adelanto, stated, "I don't want any detainees tested
through this voluntary process."
'Crisis' at Mesa Verde
Chhabria's latest order follows attorneys' allegations that ICE and
GEO were under-counting the number of people infected with the
virus.
Lawyers for the detainees argued that ICE refused to use rapid
tests, also called point-of care tests, likely exposing more
detainees to the virus while people awaited results.
"Those who tested positive have been commingled in crowded dorms
with those who tested negative," they said in an emergency status
report filed on Aug. 14. "This is due to Defendants' refusal to use
point-of-care tests that would provide timely results despite
having a sufficient quantity available onsite to test all class
members with them."
The attorneys rejected ICE's claim that 29 detainees had refused to
be tested.
"The current crisis at Mesa Verde is not a result of the refusal of
class members to be tested," they wrote. "In fact, it appears that
what Defendants are calling 'refusals' result from a variety of
factors, including lax procedures, a cavalier attitude on the part
of the persons offering the tests, and general mistrust of ICE —
which is understandable in light of the lack of accurate
information and significant delays in providing results."
The attorneys also asked Chhabria to consider bail applications for
everyone detained at Mesa Verde "in light of the current crisis."
The judge did not grant that request in his Aug. 14 order.
On Aug. 11, a federal judge blocked GEO's plan to expand its
immigration detention capacity in Kern County.
The company had proposed converting two 750-bed prison facilities
in the city of McFarland, about 27 miles north of Bakersfield, into
annexes for Mesa Verde, and the city council approved the plan. But
U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley issued a preliminary injunction
halting the plan, finding "serious questions" about whether the
permitting process complied with a state law designed to increase
public participation in local decisions about private immigration
detention centers. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Senators Recommend Class Action Bans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shaq Davis, writing for tucson.com, reports that two U.S. senators
have shared their concerns over the University of Arizona's
agreement to purchase a for-profit college and use it's assets to
bolster its online offerings.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said in a
letter to UA President Robert Robbins that the university must take
steps to ensure students are not taken advantage of.
"Without clear protections for students built into this transaction
by UA, its accreditors and the Department of Education, Arizona
taxpayers risk becoming owners of a predatory for-profit college
cloaked in the aura of your prestigious university," the senators
wrote.
The UA agreed to purchase Ashford University for $1 and add its
assets -- including the San Diego school's 35,000 online students
-- to create the University of Arizona Global Campus. The new
platform will be a separate nonprofit, fully online entity. It will
serve as an expansion of the Global Campus, made up of 150 sites
worldwide.
UA officials said the 18- to 22-year-old population makes up most
of its students, but the deal would boost UA's support for
nontraditional and underrepresented students as well as its online
offerings.
"It helps us to serve a population of students that are often left
behind and those are individuals who may not have had the
opportunity for whatever reason to go to a university out of their
high school education," said Robbins. "These are primarily working
adults, and I am very excited and proud that the University of
Arizona is going to serve this population of students."
Ashford's owner, Zovio, which is an education technology services
company, will pay $25 million annually for the first five years of
a $225 million, 15-year agreement, according to an SEC filing. It
will then pay $10 million annually to complete the contract before
being up for a renewal.
The agreement also calls for Zovio to receive annual tuition
revenue to the tune of 19.5% after the UA Global Campus covers its
direct costs of operations.
Zovio providing its recruiting, student advising and financial aid
counseling services is one of the points of concern for the
senators due to the for-profit college being in legal trouble in
recent history.
"The organization -- and in some cases individuals -- responsible
for Ashford's shameful record as a for-profit college are slated to
continue to be responsible for a variety of key functions of the UA
Global Campus -- many of those the very functions for which Ashford
was investigated and sued."
Zovio, formerly known as Bridgepoint Education, is still facing a
San Diego Supreme Court case set for April 2021. A suit was brought
against the company by the state of California in 2017 for
allegedly using its admissions office to make false promises
regarding prospective students' financial aid to get them to
enroll.
Illegal debt collection practices were then used to get the
struggling students to pay their bills, according to California
Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who filed the lawsuit.
"Ashford, now owned by Zovio, has been a major player during a
period of the last two decades that a group of state attorneys
general referred to as "open season" on students because of the
systemic defrauding of students and fleecing of taxpayers across
the for-profit college industry," the senators' letter said.
In 2014, Zovio paid a $7.25 million settlement with Iowa Attorney
General Tom Miller for consumer fraud.
"Unfortunately for many Ashford students, they did not receive the
degree they had hoped for or the job they were led to believe they
would be offered after graduating. What they did end up with was a
crushing amount of student loan debt," Miller said following the
three-year investigation.
In 2016, Zovio was ordered to pay $30 million by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau for deceptive acts, including
misleading students regarding their loans.
Robbins pointed to the WASC Senior College and University
Commission, the regional accrediting agency for Ashford, saying the
main concerns around these practices had been addressed in its
latest report.
"As we did our academic due diligence, governance due diligence and
business due diligence, we were satisfied that we could go in, take
over this university, serve the students and provide our mission
support of being a land grant university," Robbins said.
Meanwhile, the senators recommended the UA's Global Campus' Board
of Trustees should have clear policies in place, including
"independent oversight structures" and an elimination of
class-action bans, which force students to give up their rights to
sue or join a class-action suit against an entity that may have
caused them harm.
The senators' letter only added to the list of concerns, some of
which echoed previous topics mentioned by a group of six professors
within the UA's Eller College of Management. They were one of
several groups consulted in June about the potential Ashford
purchase.
Under a nondisclosure agreement, the UA administration unveiled
more information about the proposed agreement naming it the
"DigiCat Project" and changing the names of Ashford and Zovio to
"Antelope" and "Zebra" respectively.
The professors called the deal a potential "catastrophic mistake"
and presented their reservations in a response to the
administration.
"A quick google search reveals that less than 29% of their students
graduate … the average student leaves with $36,000 in debt," the
group said about Ashford.
"Furthermore, enrollment at Antelope (Ashford) University has
dropped by an average of 10.54% per year over the past seven years.
If this trend continues, we estimate that Antelope University will
lose somewhere between $35 million to $94 million per year over the
next five years. Hence, we believe the DigiCat project is a bad
investment."
The group also said associating with Ashford University and its
history of predatory practices could harm the UA's efforts to
attract instructors and donors.
Robbins said earlier this month he's mindful of things that may
effect UA's brand.
"One of the issues is that Ashford was a for-profit university, and
there have been practices around aggressive recruiting and
individuals not finishing their degrees but having large debt,"
Robbins said. "I think we've got to execute and make sure that we
deliver a high-quality, ethical education to these students, and
I'm confident that we will do that or I wouldn't have agreed to do
this deal." [GN]
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Velocity Financial,
Inc. ("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE: VEL) securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the Company's January 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").
If you suffered a loss on your Velocity investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/velocity-financial-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
In January 2020, Velocity completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 7,250,000 shares at $13 per share and raising
approximately $94 million.
On May 13, 2020, the Company announced its financial results for
first quarter 2020, the same quarter in which the IPO was
conducted. Velocity reported a 50% decrease in net income and
disclosed that its loan originations would remain suspended
indefinitely, effectively halting potential growth in the Company's
loan portfolio. Moreover, the Company stated that its proportion of
non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million, nearly double
the unpaid principal amount year over year.
Since the IPO, the Company's shares have traded as low as $2.47 per
share, or 80% below the $13 IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that 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; (2) that 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; (3) as a result, 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Velocity securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
September 28, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:
VEL) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in January 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the
important September 28, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Velocity Financial investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Velocity Financial class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1867.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, at the time of the IPO, the Company's
non-performing loans had dramatically increased in size from the
figures provided in the Offering Materials, as measured by both the
amount of unpaid principal balance and as a percentage of the
Company's overall loan portfolio. In addition, 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 Offering Materials
regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio and
underwriting practices materially misleading. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1867.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.|
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
VIRTUE LABS: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virtue Labs, LLC. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Virtue Labs, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06955 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Virtue Labs is a haircare brand that offers Alpha Keratin 60ku, a
human protein born from regenerative medicine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
VITAL PROTEINS: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VITAL PROTEINS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06958-RA
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, http://www.vitalproteins.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. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is a health supplement products company that owns and
operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Wolosky Challenges Shareholder Rights Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN WOLOSKY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
holders of THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. v. ALAN S. ARMSTRONG,
STEPHEN W. BERGSTROM, NANCY K. BUESE, STEPHEN I. CHAZEN, CHARLES I.
COGUT, MICHAEL A. CREEL, VICKI L. FULLER, PETER A. RAGAUSS, SCOTT
D. SHEFFIELD, MURRAY D. SMITH, WILLIAM H. SPENCE, THE WILLIAMS
COMPANIES, INC., and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No.
2020-0707 (Del. Ch., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of
holders of the Company's common stock seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief against its board of directors for breaches of
their fiduciary duties in connection with their adoption of an
unprecedented poison pill or shareholder rights plan.
The action seeks to force the elimination of an extremely
aggressive overreach of corporate power, according to the
complaint. On March 19, 2020, the Williams definitive proxy
statement was mailed for its April 28, 2020, annual meeting of
stockholders. On March 20, 2020, the Board announced that it had
unilaterally adopted an extraordinary and novel version of a
"Poison Pill" shareholder rights plan. The peculiar combination of
a 5% trigger and a vague and grossly overbroad definition of
"Acting-in-Concert" in the Poison Pill exceeds any prior notion of
permissible exercise of director power.
The Poison Pill is unprecedented for two reasons, the Plaintiff
contends. First, the Pill utilizes a 5% triggering threshold,
which, outside of the limited category of pills adopted to protect
substantial net operating losses ("NOLs"), has never been upheld as
an appropriate triggering threshold for a rights plan. Second, the
Pill also contains broad and facially unmanageable "aggregation"
and "acting in concert" provisions (the "Wolfpack" provisions),
which go far beyond the aggregation provisions previously approved
in the context of rights plans.
The Company, through its Chief Financial Officer, expressly
admitted that the Poison Pill was "not" adopted "in response to any
specific threat." Where, as here, the Board did not act in response
to "any specific threat" but instead, at best to an "environment"
that the Board felt threatened by, utilizing the twin nuclear
weapons of the 5% Trigger and the Wolfpack provisions in this Pill
cannot stand as a "reasonable" response to a non-specific
"threat."
By moving to undermine the ability of any dissident to mount an
effective proxy contest, the Defendants effectively denuded the
corporate franchise and breached their fiduciary duties, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Williams Companies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that operates in the energy
infrastructure business.
Computershare Trust Company NA operates as a brokerage firm based
in Massachusetts. Computershare provides public companies with
track and deliver records of their shareholders entitlements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
E-mail: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Thomas G. James, Esq.
Jacqueline Ma, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
thomas.james@blbglaw.com
Jacqueline.Ma@blbglaw.com
- and -
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
E-mail: jfriedman@fotpllc.com
dtejtel@fotpllc.com
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of YayYo, Inc. (OTC PINK: YAYO)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted in November 2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering") that a
securities class action was filed. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for YayYo investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the YayYo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration Statement featured
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Founder and former CEO El-Batrawi continued, directly and/or
indirectly, to exercise supervision, authority, and control over
YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the
business, operations, and finances of the Company, including
assisting the underwriters in marketing YayYo's IPO from Westpark's
offices in Los Angeles; (2) El-Batrawi never sold his 12,525,000
"Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling interest in
YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain less than a
10% equity ownership interest in connection with the listing
agreement; (3) certain creditors of YayYo were promised that in
exchange with their agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO (in
order to permit the underwriters to close the IPO), YayYo would
repurchase those shares from them after the IPO using proceeds from
the IPO; (4) the defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased
by creditors of YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds; (5) YayYo owed
its former President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars
at the time of the IPO; and (6) YayYo owed Social Reality, Inc.
$426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which were more than
a year overdue and payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted
to complete the IPO. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mal: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
Z RESTAURANT: FLSA Conditional Certification Bid OK'd in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE SHIBETTI and KATHLEEN
PUCCINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Z RESTAURANT, DINER AND LOUNGE, INC., ADEL FATHELBAB,
ADAM FATHELBAB, KAMAL FATHELBAB, and ESSAM ELBASSIONY, Case No.
18-cv-856-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered an
order:
1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification as an Fair Labor Standard Act action, and
for court-authorized notice;
2. directing the Defendants to disclose to the plaintiffs,
within 14 days of this order, a computer-readable list of
full names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of its current
and former employees; and
3. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment;
In light of the disposition of the other motions in this Order, the
class certification motion is denied without prejudice to renewal
consistent with the rulings in this Order within 14 days after the
opt-in period has expired. The Plaintiffs who wish to participate
in this FLSA collective action must opt in by October 21, 2020.[CC]
*********
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 ***