/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200918.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 188
Headlines
ABC PHONES: Klink Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit in California State Court Ongoing
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Consolidated Petrizzo Class Action Dismissed
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Settlement in Versetto Suit Wins Preliminary OK
ADVANCE AUTO: Discovery Ongoing in Delaware Class Suit
AIR METHODS: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in "Dequasie"
AIRBUS SE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 5 Deadline
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Dismisses Mathis FDCPA Suit With Prejudice
AMAG PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Zamfirova Suit Pending
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: $24M Schueneman Suit Deal Has Final Approval
ATLANTIC ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
ATLANTIC HOUSING: Jorge FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Texas
ATLAS INDUSTRIES: Faces Reser Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
AUTOVEST LLC: App. Court Remands Frank FDCPA Suit for Dismissal
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Reached in NY Securities Class Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Industriens Named Lead Plaintiff in Kabak Suit
BLANCHARD AND COMPANY: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA
BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Students File Class Action
BURWELL INDUSTRIES: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA
CABOT OIL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 13 Deadline
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Naylor Farms Class Suit
CHINA ZENIX: Court Narrows Claims in He Securities Fraud Suit
CYTEC RETIREMENT: $1.83MM Deal in Claudet ERISA Suit Gets Final OK
DIRECT ENERGY: Claims in Stanley Suit on Utility Rates Narrowed
DONALD TRUMP: Black Lives Matter Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Liang Suit Moved From California to S.D.N.Y.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bid to Nix Daily Fantasy Sports Suit Pending
DURACELL COMPANY: Siddle Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
EPPING GARDENS: More Families Joining Age Care Home Class Action
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Seeks for Writ of Mandamus in Munguia-Brown
FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 26 Deadline
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
FIDELITONE LAST: Caballero Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
FIRST FINANCIAL: Must Face FDCPA Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
GENIUS BRANDS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action
GIRARD, OH: Ohio Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Appeal
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Antiticompetitive Practices
GREENFIELD WORLD: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
GREGORYS COFFEE: Court Denies Partial Dismissal of Griffin Suit
H&E EQUIPMENT: Coleman Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
INTEL CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
KODAK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Insider Trading
LILLY LASHES: Angeles Files Suit under ADA in New York
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Faces Briand Class Suit Alleging Injury
LOUISIANA: Court Junks 2 Motions to Strike in McZeal Class Suit
LOWE'S HOME: Obtains Dismissal of Alminiana FLSA Class Suit
LUCKIN COFFEE: AP7 Group Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach
MCCLATCHY CO: Still Defends Fresno and Sacramento Class Suits
MCDONALD'S CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Harassment Class Suit
MEDLEY LLC: Lax and Dicristino Putative Class Suits Dismissed
MEDLEY LLC: October 21 Hearing on Settlement in Virginia Suit
MITRA MIDWEST: Franzen Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NATIONAL AUTO: Court Dismisses Shanahan TCPA Class Action
NCAA: McKnight Seeks Damages for Neglect Over Football Injuries
NEW JERSEY: Inmates Meet Requirements for Class Action Treatment
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 9 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NUNAVUT: November 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ORACLE: Faces Class Action Over Collection of Users' Data
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss 2 Stockholders Suits Still Pending
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss SIPDA Class Action Pending
PAULSCORP LLC: Katt Asserts Breach of ADA in Colorado
POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Potter Suit in Florida
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: RICO Claim in Donaldson Class Suit Dismissed
PURPLE INNOVATION: Harper Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
QUICKEN LOANS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Hill TCPA Suit
RESULTS CO: Harden Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Action Cert.
RLI CORP: Barrientos-Larios Suit Transferred to E.D. Ca.
RUHNN HOLDING: IPO Related Class Suits in New York Ongoing
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Seto Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Wages
SARBANAND FARMS: Settlement in Rosas Suit Gets Final Approval
SPECIALITY HOME: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Abbassi Labor Suit Moved to S.D. California
SUPERIOR FARMS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Smith Says
TBC RETAIL: Collins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Mechanics
TELECHECK SERVICES: Sixth Cir. Appeal Filed in Beaudry FCRA Suit
TIKTOK INC: Iyer BIPA Suit Moved From California to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: Johnson BIPA Suit Moved From Calif. to N.D. Illinois
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 18 Deadline
UNC SYSTEM: Judge to Hear Class Action Over COVID-19 Hazards
UNITED STATES: Sec. Devos Appeals Ruling in Vara Suit to 1st Cir.
VARSITY BRANDS: Monopolizes All Star Markets, Radek Suit Alleges
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Memorandum of Understanding Inked in "Hartmann"
VITA-MIX CORP: Baker & Hostetler Atty. Discusses Ruling in Linneman
VOX MEDIA: Settles SB Nation Class Action for $4 Million
WALMART INC: McKnight-Nero Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Interchange Litigation Ongoing
WESTSIDE SCHOOL: Faces Class Action for Failing to Refund Deposits
WHOLE FOODS: Berkley Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. New York
WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Files Amended Securities Complaint
WORLD WRESTLING: Shareholders File Numerous Class Actions
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Securities Class Action
[*] China Gov't-backed Class Actions Take Aim at Corporate Fraud
[*] Class Actions Over Hemp-Derived CBD Products Flourishing
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eni Rewind Still Defends Suit over Ravenna Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 30 PI Suits at July 31
*********
ABC PHONES: Klink Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ARIEL KLINK, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
DOING BUSINESS AS VICTRA, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. RG20064133, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on September 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06276 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay
all wages owed upon separation from employment, and failure to
reimburse necessary expenses in violation of California Labor Code
and for unfair competition in violation of California Business and
Professions Code.
ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., doing business as Victra, is a
telecommunications company based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert L. Shipley, Esq.
Brandon S. Gray, Esq.
ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC
2784 Gateway Road, Suite 104
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Telephone: (760) 438-5199
E-mail: rshipley@shipleylaw.com
bgray@shipleylaw.com
ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit in California State Court Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI,
Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493.
On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers (together, the "Company Defendants"), Edward R. Monfort,
the company's former Chief Technology Officer and former director,
and the two underwriters of the company's offering of common stock
under Regulation A in June 2017.
This complaint alleges that documents related to the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection therewith.
The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.
Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, and a third amended
complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class
representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan
K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class
representative.
On October 25, 2019, the company answered the third amended
complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead
Securities (together the "Underwriters") filed a cross-complaint
against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for
the Company's initial public offering (the "Underwriting
Agreement").
On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
Underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.
Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the
Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement.
On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a
cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under
the terms of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section
145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
On February 18, 2020 we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort’s
cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.
On April 6, 2020, the Company Defendants, Mr. Monfort, and
Plaintiff Electric Drivetrains engaged in mediation. The
Underwriters declined to participate in the mediation. The
mediation did not result in settlement.
On April 16, 2020, Electric Drivetrains requested that defendants
stipulate to Electric Drivetrains' filing a fourth amended
complaint. Defendants declined to stipulate to the fourth amended
complaint, leading Electric Drivetrains to file a motion to amend
the complaint. A hearing on this motion and a status conference are
set for August 12, 2020.
ADOMANI said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."
ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Consolidated Petrizzo Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2020, that the court has dismissed the
consolidated Petrizzo class action suit.
On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc.
(collectively the "Adtalem Parties") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case").
The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation.
Citing the civil complaint filed by the the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) on January 26, 2016 against the Adtalem Parties
(the "FTC lawsuit"), the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of six different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.
On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").
The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry
University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a
putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree
from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within
their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing
the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false
or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate
employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and
violations of ten different states’'consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.
By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo
caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf
of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of
individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the
Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012.
In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.
A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem
Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February
12, 2018.
On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs'
refiled complaint was nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties
moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion and dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice on February 13, 2019.
On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On July 8,
2020, by agreement of the parties, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal on Appeal with Prejudice, and the court
dismissed the case with prejudice on July 9, 2020
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Settlement in Versetto Suit Wins Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2020, that the Court in the putative class
action suit initiated by Nicole Versetto has granted a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.
The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University
program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.
The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants' motion on July
29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants'
moved to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to
the one the court previously dismissed.
No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled.
The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement (the "Settlement") on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with
the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund
by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded
within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020.
Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and
reasonably estimable. As such, we also recorded a loss contingency
accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued
operations in the Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss) for the
year ended June 30, 2020.
Adtalem said, "We anticipate the potential payments related to this
loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal
year 2021. This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual
results and result in additional charges or reversals in future
periods. A final approval hearing is set for October 7, 2020."
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ADVANCE AUTO: Discovery Ongoing in Delaware Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action
suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.
On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of our securities who purchased or otherwise acquired
their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the company
and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about our financial well-being, business
relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 7, 2020 the
court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to
dismiss.
The surviving claims will now be subject to discovery.
In addition, derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the
Company were filed against us as nominal defendant and certain of
our current and former officers and directors related to similar
allegations for the Class Period on April 29, 2020 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware and August 13, 2020 in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Advance Auto We strongly dispute the allegations of the complaints
and intend to defend the cases vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.
AIR METHODS: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in "Dequasie"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Dequasie, et al. v. Air
Methods Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01951 (D. Colo.,
Filed July 5, 2019), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson has entered
an order:
1. terminating a Motion for Summary Judgment; and
2. terminating a Motion to Certify Class.
Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter operator. The
air medical division provides emergency medical services to 70,000
- 100,000 patients every year, and operates in 48 states and
Haiti.[CC]
AIRBUS SE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Airbus SE
("Airbus" or the "Company") (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) in the United
States between February 24, 2016 and July 30, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Airbus securities in the United States, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Airbus Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) that Airbus's policies and protocols were
insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (ii) that, consequently,
Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to
enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft,
helicopter, and defense deals; (iii) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (iv) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (v) that resolution of government investigations of
Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of dollars in
settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to significant
continuing government investigation and oversight; and (vi) that,
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 8, 2016, Reuters reported that the U.K. had opened a
corruption probe into Airbus. Specifically, the SFO announced that
it had "opened a criminal investigation into allegations of fraud,
bribery and corruption in the civil aviation business of Airbus,"
which "relate to irregularities concerning third party
consultants." The investigation followed Airbus's flagging of
"misstatements and omissions" involving outside contractors in
certain export financing applications to U.K. regulators and the
European Export Credit Agencies earlier in the year, which the
Company had found through an internal probe.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.21 per share, or 1.49%, to close
at $13.86 per share on August 8, 2016, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $0.82 per share, or 1.45%, to close at $55.58 per
share on August 8, 2016.
France and the U.S. later opened their own investigations into the
subject of the SFO's allegations in 2017 and 2018, respectively. On
January 31, 2020, media outlets reported that Airbus had agreed to
a deal with U.S., U.K., and French prosecutors to settle bribery
and export-control violations against the Company for €3.6
billion ($4 billion). Pursuant to the settlement, Airbus also
agreed to appoint an external compliance officer for at least two
years to monitor the Company's handling of its defense-related
sales and disclosures.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.72 per share, or 1.93%, to close
at $36.68 per share on January 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $2.21 per share, or 1.48%, to close at $147.00 per
share on January 31, 2020.
Then, on March 15, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about fees paid
to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter division, led
at the time by the Company's current Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Defendant Guillaume M.J.D. Faury that may have violated
global bribery and corruption rules, according to internal
documents related to Airbus's $4 billion bribery settlement, which
were not previously made public and/or reported.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or 15.71%, to close
at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $77.75 per
share on March 16, 2020.
Finally, on July 30, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
the SFO had charged GPT and three individuals with corruption in
connection with a defense contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi
Arabia. These charges were the culmination of the investigations
initiated by the SFO back in August 2012.
On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or 3.56%, to close
at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries
fell $2.85 per share, or 3.8%, to close at $72.10 per share on July
31, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 5, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Airbus securities in the United States, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/airbusse-eadsy-eadsf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-289/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Dismisses Mathis FDCPA Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARYAN MATHIS, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC,
LVNV FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-591-T-33SPF (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
with Prejudice.
On March 12, 2020, Mathis initiated the putative class action
lawsuit against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). According to the complaint,
Mathis incurred a debt to Credit One Bank, N.A. Credit One
thereafter sold the debt to LVNV, who contracted with Allied to
collect the debt.
The Defendants then sent Mathis a collection letter on March 21,
2019. The March 21 letter identified the original creditor, the
current creditor, and the amount of the debt. In connection with
the collection of the Credit One debt, the Defendants sent Mathis a
second letter on June 2, 2019. The June 2 letter contained
identical language pertaining to debt dispute and validation as the
March 21 letter.
According to Mathis, by stating that the consumer has an additional
30-day period in which he or she may dispute the debt, which is not
accurate per the FDCPA, the Defendants' June 2, 2019 letter is
misleading or may confuse the consumer as to his or her rights.
Mathis further alleges that as a result of the Defendants'
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices, he has
been damaged.
Based on these allegations, Mathis claims that the Defendants have
violated the FDCPA. Specifically, he claims that the Defendants
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10).
The Defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss, requesting that the
complaint be dismissed with prejudice. They argue that numerous
district courts from within and outside of the Eleventh Circuit
have rejected arguments identical to those presented by Mathis
because exposing debt collectors to liability under the FDCPA for
the sending of two debt validation notices would effectively punish
the expansion of consumers' rights under the statute and thereby
"defy the policy underpinnings of the FDCPA."
Mathis points to contrary case law holding that debt collectors can
indeed by liable under the statute for sending two debt validation
letters and urges that the Court be guided by those cases. He
maintains that the sending of a second letter, nearly identical to
the first, notifying the consumer of their right to dispute the
debt within 30 days is confusing and misleading to the least
sophisticated consumer.
Judge Hernandez notes that the Defendants are correct that district
courts both within and outside of the Circuit have examined the
issue of whether a debt collector's sending of two debt validation
notices under Section 1692g violates Section 1692e. For example, a
court within the District recently rejected an argument identical
to the one raised by Mathis, noting that several district courts,
both in the circuit and others, have rejected the same contention
and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant
debt collector. The McCray v. Deitsch & Wright, P.A. court
concluded that the two debt collection notices at issue in that
case provided the required statutory FDCPA disclosures, did not
diminish the plaintiff's rights to dispute the debt, and extended
the 30-day period in which a consumer could dispute a debt.
Therefore, the second notice did not violate Section 1692e(10).
That leaves Mathis' contention -- raised for the first time in the
response to the Motion -- that the Defendants never had any
intention of granting an additional 30 days to dispute the debt.
The problem with the argument is that Mathis does not raise the
theory of liability anywhere in the complaint. Anticipating the
outcome, Mathis has requested leave to amend the complaint to add
this new theory of liability. For their part, the Defendants argue
that because Mathis never disputed the debt within the initial
30-day time frame, Mathis' new theory is purely hypothetical.
Judge Hernandez agrees. Hypothetical situation is not before the
Court in the instant case. Any such concerns arising from facts
that are not presently before the Court are for another case and
should not be addressed by the Court in the case.
While leave to amend ought generally to be freely granted, leave to
amend need not be granted when any amendment would be futile. The
clear weight of authority, in the Circuit and without, is that
claims such as the one Mathis seeks to bring are not actionable
under the FDCPA and ought to be dismissed without further leave to
amend.
Accordingly, Judge Hernandez granted the Defendants Allied
Interstate and LVNV Funding's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed
to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close
the case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/huJlAl from Leagle.com.
AMAG PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Zamfirova Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss in the consolidated
class action suit entitled, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM, is pending.
On November 1, 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, captioned Barnes v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05088-RK (W.D. Mo.).
Subsequently, other plaintiffs represented by the same law firm
filed similar class action lawsuits in other jurisdictions, and the
lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM (April 2, 2020).
The plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and
purported state-wide classes of similarly situated consumers in
California, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin,
assert claims for violation of state consumer protection laws and
unjust enrichment based on allegations that the company and/or its
predecessor companies made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the effectiveness of Makena in connection with the sale
and marketing of that product from 2011 through the present.
On June 8, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs responded with a brief in
opposition to the motion on July 6, 2020. Our reply brief was filed
on July 20, 2020.
AMAG said, "Because this case is at the earliest stage, we are
currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the
range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any."
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia in adult
patients. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
America's Collectibles Network, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. America's Collectibles
Network, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07120 (S.D. N.Y., Sept.
1, 2020).
America's Collectibles Network, Inc. d/b/a Jewelry Television is an
American television network. It was formerly called the America's
Collectibles Network. The company sells both women's and men's
jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: $24M Schueneman Suit Deal Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD SCHUENEMAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARENA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:10-CV-01959-CAB-(BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i)
granted the Lead Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of
class action settlement; and (ii) granted in part the Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.
The putative class action lawsuit began on Sept. 20, 2010, when a
complaint was filed alleging various violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. On Nov. 1,
2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for violations of the federal securities laws that was
subsequently amended on May 13, 2013.
On Nov. 7, 2017, after over seven years of pending litigation,
including an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the parties notified the
Court that they had reached a settlement.
The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement provides for settlement
and full release of all claims against the Defendants for
securities fraud violations. It authorizes a recovery of $24
million, consisting of $12.025 million in cash and Arena common
stock to be issued with a value of $11.975 million.
The Settlement defines the class as all Persons who purchased Arena
common stock between March 17, 2008 and Jan. 27, 2011, inclusive,
and were damaged thereby. The average distribution is estimated to
be $0.13 per damaged share before deduction of Court-approved fees
and expenses. The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to
Authorized Claimants as proscribed by the Plan of Allocation, with
each claimant's share of the Net Settlement Fund being based upon
the recognized loss formula described in the Notice.
Additionally, the settlement authorizes: (1) payment of up to
$250,000 in class administrator fees; (2) the payment of taxes and
tax expense; (3) a fee and expense award to lead counsel; and (4)
payment of a class representative award. The separately filed
motion for attorneys' fees reveals that the Lead Counsel is seeking
30% of the cash consideration and 30% of the Settlement Shares,
reimbursement of $251,213.10 in litigation expenses, and a $17,500
representative award for the Lead Plaintiff.
The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the Settlement
on Nov. 20, 2017.
On further review, Judge Bencivengo finds that the Class satisfies
the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Also, in light of the risks associated with continuing
the litigation, the Judge finds that a payout in the amount appears
reasonable and weighs in favor of approval of the settlement.
Having considered the relevant factors, the Judge finds the
settlement fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.
Judge Bencivengo has now entered a further order:
(1) granting final approval of the proposed Settlement and Plan of
Allocation;
(2) granting in part the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys'
fees,
costs and class representative payments;
(3) granting the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of 15%
of the cash consideration ($1,803,750) and 15% of the
settlement shares (valued at $1,796,250), which results in a
fee award equaling $3.6 million, and $152,781.77 in costs from
the Settlement fund;
(4) denying the request for a class representative award to Lead
Plaintiff Carl Schwartz to be paid from the settlement fund;
and
(5) granting final approval of $400,000 in settlement
administration costs to be paid from the settlement fund to
Garden City Group, LLC/Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions,
Inc.
As to costs, the Judge clarified that she found two particular
expense items troubling. The Lead Counsel requests reimbursement
in the amount of $32,712.33 in "Travel/Meals" and $65,819 for
payment of "Experts and Consultants," yet the declaration filed in
support provides only three sentences in relation to these expenses
with no supporting documentation justifying these costs. The Judge
is unable to ascertain why these excessive expenses were incurred
in relation to the Settled Claims and therefore declines to
reimburse the monies spent on them. As a consequence, the Judge
awards $152,781.7711 in fees.
The two class members who asked to opt out of the settlement are
excluded from the class.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/n3Jkg8 from Leagle.com.
ATLANTIC ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons entities similarly situated v. ATLANTIC ENERGY MD LLC and
JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 0:20-cv-61795-RAR (S.D. Fla., Sept.
3, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants placed at least four
telemarketing calls to his private telephone number (215) 725-XXXX,
which was registered on both the Federal and Pennsylvania State
Do-Not-Call registries, on August 18, 2020. The Defendants
allegedly engages in telemarketing to promote the Defendants'
services without obtaining prior express written consent to the
customers, thereby, harming them and causing them damage.
Atlantic Energy MD LLC is an energy services company provider that
offers energy to residential customers that it purchased on a
deregulated market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ATLANTIC HOUSING: Jorge FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANITA JORGE, individually & on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ATLANTIC HOUSING FOUNDATION, INC. and MICHAEL
NGUYEN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00296, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on September 4,
2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-02782-N to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated resident coordinators
appropriate minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide
accurate wage statements in violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Atlantic Housing Foundation, Inc., is a community housing
development organization that owns and operates affordable housing
for low-income persons.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dorotha M. Ocker, Esq.
OCKER LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 192
Addison, TX 75001
Telephone: (214) 390-5715
Facsimile: (469) 277-3365
E-mail: dmo@ockerlawfirm.com
ATLAS INDUSTRIES: Faces Reser Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY RESER, JOSEPH ALEJANDRO, WILLIAM HOFFMAN, AMY M. LEVARIO,
and RICHARD HUFF v. ATLAS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED c/o Richard J.
Clark, Statutory Agent, Case No. 3:20-cv-01988-JZ (N.D. Ohio, Sept.
3, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and of all other
similarly situated persons for the Defendant's alleged violation of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to provide them and
the other similarly situated employees at least 60 days advance
written notice prior to their terminations due to the mass layoff
or plant closing ordered by the Defendant on September 6, 2019.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to pay their respective wages,
salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued
vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations, the
Plaintiffs contend.
Atlas Industries, Incorporated, manufactures precision machined
crankshafts and markets its products to metal fabrication
manufacturers throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq.
John A. Coble, Esq.
Jordan A. Treece, Esq.
ALBRECHTA & COBLE, Ltd.
2228 Hayes Ave., Suite A
Fremont, OH 43420
Tel: (419) 332-9999
Fax: (419) 333-8147
Emails: jcoble@lawyer-ac.com
kwitte@lawyer-ac.com
AUTOVEST LLC: App. Court Remands Frank FDCPA Suit for Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, PHYLLIS FRANK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. AUTOVEST, LLC, ET AL.,
Appellees, Case No. 19-7119 (D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) vacated the district
court's order denying Autovest and Michael Andrews & Associates'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and (ii) remanded
the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
When Phyllis Frank failed to make her monthly car payments,
Autovest acquired her debt and sued to collect. In the wake of
that aborted collection action, Frank sued Autovest and its
debt-collection agency under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").
Frank purchased a used Chevrolet Impala in May 2011. The
dealership immediately assigned its interest in the financing
agreement to First Investors Financial Services ("FIFS"), and Frank
understood that she was financing the vehicle with money borrowed
from FIFS. Frank fell behind on payments after losing her job and
becoming homeless. She defaulted on the loan in 2014 and
voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to FIFS in August 2015.
Frank's debt changed hands several times, but was ultimately
acquired by Autovest. Andrews, Autovest's agent for debt
collection, mailed Frank a pair of letters explaining that Autovest
had purchased her debt and instructing her to submit all future
payments to Andrews' office.
In October 2016, Autovest sued Frank in the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia to collect the outstanding principal of
$8,557.53 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Autovest
attached a sworn "Verification of Complaint" signed by Christina
Dunn, who identified herself as an "agent/officer/employee of the
Plaintiff" with the authority to verify the attached complaint.
But Dunn was employed by Andrews, not Autovest.
Four months later, the Superior Court issued an order of default.
Frank moved to vacate the default and filed a pro se answer.
Autovest moved for default judgment in April 2017, relying on an
affidavit signed by Glenn E. Deuman. Deuman averred that he was
employed by Autovest, LLC as a Senior Technical Product Manager.
Like Dunn, however, Deuman actually worked for Andrews. Autovest
also filed a fee affidavit in which its attorney, Robert D. Wagman,
explained that his representation of Autovest was handled on a
contingency fee basis. But Wagman then calculated his fees using
the lodestar method, and the motion for default judgment sought
only that lodestar amount of $895.
Frank paid $20 to vacate the default, declined Autovest's offer to
enter judgment by consent, and retained counsel. On Jan. 25, 2018,
the Superior Court granted Autovest's request to dismiss its
collection suit with prejudice.
Frank filed the putative class action against Autovest and Andrews
in federal district court in December 2017. Her First Amended
Complaint alleges that the Dunn and Deuman affidavits contain
false, deceptive, or misleading representations under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e. Frank also characterizes the affidavits as conduct
designed to harass, oppress, or abuse in violation of section
1692d, and as "unfair or unconscionable" debt-collection practices
under section 1692f. Finally, Frank alleges that Autovest violated
the same provisions of the Act by attempting to collect
contractually unauthorized contingency fees.
The district court denied Autovest and Andrews's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, and the case proceeded to discovery.
At her deposition, Frank testified that she felt she was being
scammed when she learned about the collection suit because she had
"never heard of Autovest." However, Frank denied taking action or
refraining from doing anything because of the representations of
employment in the Dunn and Deuman affidavits. Likewise, Frank
answered "No" when asked whether she undertook or avoided any
action or made any payments "as a result of" the Wagman affidavit.
Autovest and Andrews moved for summary judgment, and the district
court granted their motion on Sept. 29, 2019. On the section 1692e
false-statement claims, the court reasoned that any falsehoods in
the Dunn and Deuman affidavits were immaterial -- and thus not
actionable -- because they had no effect on Frank's ability to
respond or to dispute the debt. On the contingency-fee claims, the
court concluded that Autovest did not attempt to collect such fees;
Wagman merely referred to his contingency-fee relationship with
Autovest.
The Appellate Court finds that Frank fails to identify a concrete
personal injury traceable to the false representations in the Dunn
and Deuman affidavits or the alleged request for contingency fees
in the Wagman affidavit. In fact, Frank testified unequivocally
that she neither took nor failed to take any action because of
these statements. Nor did Frank testify that she was otherwise
confused, misled, or harmed in any relevant way during the
collection action by the contested affidavits. And although Frank
stated that Autovest's suit caused her stress and inconvenience,
she never connected those general harms to the affidavits. Because
Frank was unaffected by the conduct that underlies her FDCPA
claims, she lacks Article III standing.
For these reasons, the Appellate Court vacated the district court's
judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 9, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/cvwT2v from Leagle.com.
Dean Gregory -- dean@deangregory.com -- argued the cause and filed
the briefs for appellant.
Scott A. King -- Scott.King@ThompsonHine.com -- argued the cause
for appellees. With him on the brief were Jessica E.
Salisbury-Copper -- Copper@ThompsonHine.com -- and Eric N. Heyer --
Eric.Heyer@ThompsonHine.com.
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Reached in NY Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that parties in the class
action suit entitled, In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities
Litigation, have reached an agreement to settle the matter.
On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain former
officers of the Company. On June 3, 2019, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff and class counsel.
The complaint was subsequently amended on June 28, 2019 and
recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation" on
July 8, 2019. On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a further
amended complaint.
The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock
between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive. The
complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market
manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to
Avon's credit terms for Representatives in Brazil. On July 26,
2019, Avon and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On November 18, 2019, the court denied that motion.
Accordingly, on December 16, 2019, Avon and the individual
defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On February
14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The
parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this class
action.
The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of
claims against the Company and the individual defendants and
payment of $14.5 million. Approximately $2 million of the
settlement will be paid by the Company (which represents the
remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance
policies) and the remainder of the settlement will be paid by the
Company's insurers. Certain documentation relating to the
settlement has not yet been finalized, and the settlement is
subject to court approval.
In the event the settlement is not approved by the court, or is
otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be
unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate.
Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.
BECTON DICKINSON: Industriens Named Lead Plaintiff in Kabak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN KABAK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEPHEN KABAK & JOY
SCHARY LIVING TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-2155 (SRC) (D. N.J.), Judge
Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey appointed (i) Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S as Lead
Plaintiff; and (ii) Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Lead
Counsel and Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, PC as
Liaison Counsel.
The matter comes before the Court on competing motions for
appointment of a lead plaintiff and for approval of class counsel
in the securities class action brought pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
The putative class action was filed on Feb. 27, 2020 by Kabak, a
shareholder in Defendant Becton Dickinson and Company, against
Becton and several of Becton's current and former executive
officers. According to the Complaint, Becton is a medical
technology company that develops, manufactures, and sells a broad
range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products. One of these products is the Alaris pump, an
infusion pump for the delivery of fluids, medication, and blood to
patients of all ages.
The lawsuit concerns the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent
statements and omissions regarding Becton's Alaris product. The
Complaint alleges that, from Nov. 5, 2019 to Feb. 5, 2020, the
Defendants made misleading statements and omissions of material
fact about software problems with the Alaris pump and the related
need to remediate the problems as well as possibly recall the
product. The Complaint further alleges that these
misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of
Becton's shares, which then fell nearly 12% on Feb. 6, 2020. On
that date, Becton disclosed, among other things, that it expected
revenue for fiscal year 2020 to increase by only 1.5% to 2.5% to
reflect the impact of the remediation effort and anticipated loss
of sales of the Alaris infusion system.
The Complaint seeks to recover the lost share value on behalf of a
putative class of Becton investors consisting of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Becton securities
between Nov. 5, 2019 and Feb. 5, 2020, inclusive. It asserts
claims for relief pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and
20(a), and Rule 10b-5.
On April 27, 2020, the Court received three separate motions by
putative class members seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff,
submitted by the following movants: named Plaintiff Stephen Kabak;
Michael Kim; and Industriens. Thereafter, Kabak withdrew his
motion.
First, as to financial interest, the proof before the Court
demonstrates that Industriens is the movant with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class of
purchasers of Becton securities. According to the material
submitted to the Court, Judge Chesler finds that Industriens has
sustained losses of approximately $828,718. In contrast, competing
movant Kim has lost $143,045. Kim does not dispute that competing
movant Industriens has lost over five times the amount he has lost
as the alleged result of Defendants' securities fraud.
Second, as to the Civil Rule of Federal Procedure 23 requirements,
Judge Chesler is guided by the Third Circuit's holding that, in
evaluating which member of the class in a PSLRA action should be
appointed lead plaintiff, the inquiry should be confined to
determining whether the movant has made a prima facie showing of
typicality and adequacy. Industriens has demonstrated that it
satisfies both of these criteria. There is no indication that the
claims asserted by Industriens in the suit conflict or would
potentially conflict with the claims of the putative class as a
whole.
Industriens clearly satisfies the PSLRA's lead plaintiff
requirements, the Court holds. It is, therefore, the presumptive
lead plaintiff, and must be appointed to the role unless another
class member comes forward with proof to rebut the presumption.
Kim does not come forward with any evidence demonstrating that
Industriens is not the most adequate plaintiff to represent the
class or otherwise make any attempt to rebut the presumption.
The Court therefore concludes that (1) Industriens qualifies under
the PSLRA to serve as the Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud
class action against Becton and the other Defendants and (2) Kim's
motion to be appointed as a co-lead Plaintiff lacks merit.
Industriens has also moved for the Court's approval of its
selection of counsel to represent the class. It has selected
Kessler Topaz to serve as the lead counsel for the class and
Carella Byrne to serve as the liaison counsel. Both firms have
extensive experience in litigating securities class actions, and
their work in other lawsuits of a similar nature demonstrates that
they are qualified to represent the putative class in the action,
the Court finds.
Accordingly, Judge Chesler (i) denied the Kim's motion to be
appointed lead plaintiff, and (ii) granted Industriens' motion to
be appointed the lead plaintiff. Industriens is appointed to serve
as the Lead Plaintiff, and its selection of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP as the Lead Counsel for the class and Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, PC as the Liaison Counsel for the
class is approved.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/vhdiyP from Leagle.com.
BLANCHARD AND COMPANY: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Blanchard and Company, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Blanchard and Company, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07125 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).
Blanchard and Company, Inc. is an investment firm specializing in
rare coins and precious metals, including gold bars, silver coins
and bars, platinum, and palladium.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
BLUE RIDGE: Suit vs. Virginia Community Bankshares Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company has assumed
liability of Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. (VCB) in relation
to the class action suit filed against the latter.
On August 12, 2019, a former employee of VCB and participant in its
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") filed a class action
complaint against VCB, Virginia Community Bank, and certain
individuals associated with the ESOP in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (Case
No. 3:19-cv-00045-GEC).
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to ESOP participants in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
The complaint alleges that the ESOP incurred damages "that approach
or exceed $12 million."
The Company automatically assumed any liability of VCB in
connection with this litigation as a result of the Company’s
acquisition of VCB.
The Company believes the claims are without merit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Charlottesville, Virginia. It provides commercial and consumer
banking and financial services through its wholly-owned bank
subsidiary, Blue Ridge Bank, National Association (the "Bank"), and
its non-bank financial services affiliates. The Company was
incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia in July
1988 in connection with the holding company reorganization of the
Bank, which was completed in July 1988.
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Students File Class Action
----------------------------------------------
According to rrstar.com, Bradley University broke its agreement
with students and parents last spring when they shuttered the
school in the wake of the burgeoning COVID-19 crisis.
That's the gist of a federal lawsuit, filed in July in U.S.
District Court in Peoria by an undergraduate nursing major who is
listed anonymously in the filing as Jane Doe. The suit is seeking
to be made a class action on behalf of other students who were
enrolled at the time.
Renee Charles, a spokeswoman for the university, said the school
was aware of the lawsuit and that many other institutions are
facing similar cases. Bradley, she said, doesn't comment on pending
litigation.
The woman's attorney, Matthew T. Peterson of Tampa, Florida, said
it is common in these types of lawsuits for a student to use an
anonymous name.
The suit claims the school reneged on its agreement to provide a
quality education and didn't refund any money back to the
students.
" . . . after Bradley's change to online instruction only,
Plaintiff received an inferior level of education, as instructors
reduced the workload and instruction time," the suit said.
"Despite Bradley sending students home and closing its campus,
Bradley continued to charge Plaintiff and the Class for tuition and
mandatory fees as instruction and services were being provided and
continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars
from students," the suit stated. "While Plaintiff and the Class
contracted and paid Bradley for a comprehensive academic
experience, Bradley provided Plaintiff and the Class something far
less: a limited online experience presented by Google or Zoom, void
of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction, separated from
program resources, and barred from facilities vital to study."
The suit goes on to state that students didn't receive the quality
of teaching that was expected.
The woman said in the suit that she went to Bradley in the fall of
2019 because she had done research and found that being on campus
and having the in-person instruction that was typified by the
school's recruitment efforts was best for her career goals.
And the suit noted that her spring semester costs, estimated to be
around $23,000, was significantly more than other schools which are
strictly online. [GN]
BURWELL INDUSTRIES: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Burwell Industries, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Burwell Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07098 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).
Burwell Industries, Inc. is a cosmetic manufacturer in Englewood,
CO.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CABOT OIL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ("Cabot" or "the Company") (NYSE: COG)
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
23, 2015 and June 12, 2020, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 13, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Cabot failed to maintain appropriate
environmental controls and also failed to mitigate known problems
with controls and procedures. The Company failed to fix
malfunctioning gas wells, polluting the water supply of
Pennsylvania. The Company downplayed its civil and criminal
liability for this and other environmental problems. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Cabot, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335 [GN]
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Naylor Farms Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a settlement agreement has been reached in the
class action suit entitled, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as
class representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C. (the "Naylor Farms case").
On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma alleging that the company improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
non-governmental Royalty Interest owners from crude oil and natural
gas wells the company operates in Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class.
Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000, the
majority of which consist of interest and may increase with the
passage of time.
The company responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the
allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in October 2015.
In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
asking the Naylor Trial Court to determine as a matter of law that
natural gas is not marketable until it is in the condition and
location to enter an interstate pipeline.
On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court. Subsequently the bankruptcy
stay was lifted for the limited purpose of determining the class
certification issue.
On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific
language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the
leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify. After
additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the Naylor
Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include only
claims relating back to June 1, 2006. On May 3, 2019, the company's
appeal of that class certification was denied by the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named and putative
plaintiffs, on August 15, 2016, plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof
of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming damages in excess
of $150,000 in the company's Prior Chapter 11 Cases. The Company
objected to treatment of the claim on a class basis, asserting the
claim should be addressed on an individual basis.
On April 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended proof of claim
reducing the claim to an amount in excess of $90,000 inclusive of
actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and attorney fees.
On May 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company's
objection, ruling the plaintiffs may file a claim on behalf of the
class. This order did not establish liability or otherwise address
the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The Bankruptcy Court order
was affirmed by the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware on September 24, 2019.
On October 24, 2019, the Company filed its notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
During the period leading up to the commencement of the Chapter 11
Case, the Company engaged in settlement negotiations with counsel
to the plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms case. On July 6, 2020, after
multiple rounds of negotiations, the Company and the class
representatives reached an agreement in principle on the terms of a
settlement and, on August 15, 2020, the Company and the class
representatives entered into a settlement agreement (the
"Settlement Agreement") to settle all claims related to the Naylor
Farms case, including, for the avoidance of doubt, all alleged
claims arising prior to the petition date in the Prior Chapter 11
Cases and all alleged claims arising thereafter.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed to:
-- pay $2,500 to the settlement class;
-- pay $850 to counsel to the settlement class for attorney
fees, in exchange for a release of all liens or claims asserted by
all counsel related to the Naylor Farms case;
-- pay $150 to the class representative for services rendered
as class representative; and
-- allow the class proof of claim filed in the Prior Chapter
11 Case in an aggregate amount of $45,000 (provided that all other
individual proofs of claims filed for similar claims are
withdrawn).
The effectiveness of the settlement is subject to numerous
conditions precedent, including approval by the Bankruptcy Court.
Upon the Bankruptcy Court's final approval of the Settlement
Agreement, the members of the class who do not opt out of the
settlement will provide the Company with a release of all past and
present claims with respect to the allegations in the Naylor Farms
case, and the Naylor Farms case and the Third Circuit appeal will
be dismissed with prejudice.
Upon the final approval of the Settlement Agreement and the
effectiveness of the settlement, the plaintiffs, in full
satisfaction, settlement, discharge, and release of their claims
asserted in the Prior Chapter 11 Cases, shall be deemed to hold
1,432,300 shares of Class A common stock in Chaparral Energy, Inc.
as of the Petition Date on account of the $45,000 allowed class
proof of claim and shall be entitled to receive any distribution
under the Plan provided to holders of equity interests who do not
hold through the Depository Trust Corporation (the "DTC") or whose
interests arise in connection with claims pending in the Prior
Chapter 11 Cases, subject to a cap.
Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
CHINA ZENIX: Court Narrows Claims in He Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZHENGYU HE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINA ZENIX AUTO INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, JIANHUI LAI, and MARTIN CHEUNG, Defendants, Civ. No.
2:18-15530 (KM-JAD) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs filed the putative class action alleging securities
fraud against China Zenix and certain of its senior officials. The
allegations stem from purportedly false or materially misleading
statements and omissions made by the Defendants in various public
disclosures, as well as an alleged stock manipulation scheme. The
Plaintiffs assert that these false and materially misleading
statements violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and that the manipulation scheme violated Section 9(a) of the
Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs ITENT EDV Dienstleistungs GmbH and Ing. Richard Deutner
Softwaeentwicklung & Beratung seek to represent a class consisting
of all those (other than the Defendants and their affiliates) who
purchased publicly traded securities issued by Defendant China
Zenix from Oct. 2, 2015 through June 14, 2018. The Plaintiffs
purchased such securities during the Class Period.
Defendant China Zenix is based in the People's Republic of China
and incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. It
designs, manufactures, and sells wheels for commercial vehicles.
In 2011, China Zenix completed an initial public offering of
American Depository Shares ("ADS"), each of which represented four
of the Company's ordinary shares. The ADS traded on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") from May 11, 2011 until June 14, 2018, and
currently trade on the over-the-counter market.
Defendant Jianhui Lai is the Company's founder. During the Class
Period, Lai served as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chairman of
the Company's Board of Directors. Defendant Martin Cheung has
served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) since March
2014.
Lai beneficially owns approximately 70% of the Company's ordinary
shares through his sole ownership of Newrace Limited, China Zenix's
Virgin Islands-based holding company. Additionally, multiple
members of his family are involved with the Company, serving as
directors or officers of the Company's operating subsidiary,
Indeed, the Company operates much like a family business. Lai's
substantial ownership is unique; no other director or executive
officer of the Company holds more than 1% of its total outstanding
ordinary shares.
The Plaintiffs' allegations center on an NYSE regulation requiring
the average closing price of a security traded on the exchange to
be greater than or equal to $1 over a period of 30 trading days.
If the price dips below $1 for a given period, the NYSE notifies
the company and allows it a six-month cure period to raise the
price. If, at the end of the cure period, the price has remained
below $1 for the previous 30 trading-days, then the NYSE is
permitted to delist the company.
The Plaintiffs allege that the October 2015 Press Release was
misleading because it failed to disclose three facts: (1) That the
Company knew its employees and others were trading the ADS in an
improper manner following the notification from the NYSE; (2) That
this improper trading was the true reason the Company was able to
comply with the $1 price requirement; and (3) That the Company
faced a material risk of being delisted by the NYSE because of this
improper trading and its knowledge thereof.
On June 14, 2018, the NYSE commenced delisting proceedings against
the Company. The next day, the Company issued its own press
release announcing its intent to appeal the NYSE delisting
decision. On June 18, 2018, the Company resumed trading, now on
the over-the-counter exchange, under a new stock ticker symbol. On
the first day of trading, the price fell 42% from the previous
closing price. On Dec. 11, 2018 the Company issued a press release
announcing that a committee of the Board of Directors of the NYSE
had affirmed the exchange's decision to delist the Company's ADS.
The Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: (i) Violation
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC (against the Company,
as well as Lai and Cheung individually); (ii) Violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a) (against Lai
and Cheung individually); and (iii) Violation of Sections 9(a) and
9(f) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78i(a) & (f) (against
the Company, as well as Lai and Cheung individually).
On April 28, 2016, the Company filed its annual report for the
fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2015 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on Form 20-F, which was accompanied by a
certification filed pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
signed by Lai and Cheung ("2015 SOX"). Each signatory certified
that the 2015 Annual Report was accurate, that it did not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact, and that he had disclosed
to the Company's auditor and audit committee any fraud involving
Company management or employees with a significant role in
controlling the Company's financial reporting. These statements
were allegedly misleading for the same reasons as the October 2015
Press Release.
On May 27, 2016, the Company issued a press release stating that it
had again been notified by the NYSE that it was not in compliance
with the minimum price threshold. On Sept. 2, 2016, it issued a
press release announcing that it was back in compliance the NYSE's
minimum price requirements. The announcement, like the October
2015 Press Release, was allegedly misleading because the Company
omitted its knowledge of the improper trading that had produced the
increase in the share price.
On April 28, 2017, the Company filed its annual report for the
fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2016, as well as a certification signed
by Lai and Cheung ("2016 SOX"). These statements were allegedly
misleading for the same reasons as the 2015 Annual Report and 2015
SOX. They were additionally misleading because there had been
additional improper trading following the May 2016 notification
from the NYSE that the Company was not meeting the minimum price
threshold.
Finally, on April 27, 2018, the Company filed its annual report for
the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2017. Said Report was accompanied
by another certification signed by Lai and Cheung ("2017 SOX").
These were allegedly misleading for the same reasons as the 2016
Annual Report and the 2016 SOX. This time, the Company disclosed
that in July of 2017, the NYSE had requested information regarding
the Company's knowledge of the trading conducted by certain
persons, including a number of Company employees, in the Company's
stock during certain periods in 2015 and 2016. That disclosure
warned that if the NYSE believes it is warranted, it can remove the
Company's stock from listing on its exchange. The Plaintiffs
allege that this statement is misleading for the same reasons as
the 2016 and 2017 Annual Reports and SOX certifications: i.e., the
Company's knowledge that improper trading had occurred and that the
trading had created a material risk of delisting.
The original complaint was filed by Zhengyu He on Oct. 31, 2018.
On Feb. 17, 2019, Magistrate Judge Dickson granted an order
appointing the Plaintiffs as the Lead Plaintiffs for the proposed
class. The Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on April
23, 2019. The Defendants' motion to dismiss was entered on the
docket on Sept. 11, 2019.
Judge McNulty granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Count
Three (Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act). Count One (Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act) is dismissed as to Defendant Cheung only. The
Judge otherwise denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
Among other things, the Judge finds that taken together, the facts
-- surrounding circumstances of which are particularly described --
serve as the basis for the Plaintiffs' belief that the Company was
improperly trading and should have disclosed that information to
investors in its October 2015 and September 2016 Press Releases.
The Plaintiffs cannot be expected at this stage to have a grasp of
the exact contours of the improper trading scheme; those facts,
assuming they occurred, would more likely be in the control of
Defendants and others. What matters is that, as to the October
2015 and September 2016 Press Releases, the Plaintiffs have pled
with the requisite particularity both the misleading statements and
the basis for the belief that the statements would mislead an
investor as to the underlying facts.
Also, the appropriate "forum" of which the Defendants must have
purposefully availed themselves is not New Jersey, but the United
States. The Exchange Act allows for nationwide service of process.
For violations of statutes which allow for nationwide service of
process, the appropriate analysis is whether the Defendants have
minimum contacts with the United States generally, not the state in
which the federal court sits. SEC filings, such as the 2017 Annual
Report and the Form 6K which included the October 2015 and the
September 2016 Press Releases, can give rise to specific personal
jurisdiction over the control persons of the company making the
filing.
The Defendants, looking ahead to the merits, make the facile point
that the Court lacks jurisdiction over them because they did
nothing wrong -- i.e., that because the filings are not actionable,
no one responsible for them is thereby subject to the Court's
jurisdiction. But some of those filings were actionable, see
supra, and Lai and Cheung are responsible for them as control
persons and signatories. The Defendants do not put forth any
argument that it would violate fair play or justice to subject
control persons of a company which traded on the NYSE and filed
documents with the SEC to jurisdiction in the United States.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over both Lai and Cheung.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/re0EEm from Leagle.com.
CYTEC RETIREMENT: $1.83MM Deal in Claudet ERISA Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted final approval of the proposed class
settlement in CLAUDET, v. CYTEC RETIREMENT PLAN ET AL SECTION "L"
(1), Civil Action No. 17-10027 (E.D. La.).
The case arises from a reduction of retirement benefits. Plaintiff
Claudet is a retired beneficiary of Defendant Cytec Retirement
Plan. In addition to Cytec Retirement Plan, the Plaintiff brought
claims against Defendant Cytec Retirement and Defendant Solvay USA,
Inc. on behalf of himself and at least 320 similarly situated
individuals who were allegedly purposefully deprived of retirement
benefits by the Defendants.
Mr. Claudet avers that as an employee of Cytec, he participated in
Cytec's retirement plan, which is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The plan allows
participants to receive a "life annuity" that guarantees a monthly
pension payment for the remainder of a retiree's life. Married
retirees can elect to receive a reduced monthly pension benefit in
order to provide continuing benefits to a spouse that survives the
retiree. The plan also contains a "pop-up feature," pursuant to
which a retiree who is predeceased by his or her spouse or
beneficiary will have the monthly benefit increased to the Single
Life Annuity benefit for the remainder of his or her life.
Mr. Claudet retired in 2002 and began receiving benefits under the
Plan. He elected the 100% continuing benefit option for his wife.
In 2014, the Plan was amended, and in 2015, Defendant Solvay
acquired Defendant Cytec. In 2016, Mr. Claudet received a letter
from Solvay stating that his pension benefits had been "incorrectly
calculated" and that his benefits would be reduced. The Plaintiff
sought clarification of this change and through various
communications with Defendants, learned that this reduction in
benefits, which was approximately $40 per month, was characterized
as an actuarial cost associated with the pop-up feature that had
erroneously not been charged to the plan participants electing such
a feature.
Accordingly, Mr. Claudet made an ERISA claim for restoration of his
benefits. This claim was denied, and Mr. Claudet appealed the
denial. Mr. Claudet's appeal was also denied. Having exhausted
his administrative appeals, he filed the present class action on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The Defendants answered the complaint, generally denying liability.
They take the position that the charge is justified because the
relevant regulations require that a Qualified Joint and Survivor
Annuity be at least as valuable as any other option form of
benefit. Further, they raise 11 defenses including failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, limitation of
remedies under ERISA, and statute of limitations.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's ex parte motion to certify the
class on May 16, 2018, defining the class as:
All vested participants in the Cytec Retirement Plan who from
Jan.
1, 1994 to Dec. 31, 2013 elected a joint and survivor benefit
option pursuant to the 1994 or 1997 Cytec Retirement Plan and
were
subject to a reduction of monthly benefits as a result of the
actuarial charges of the pop-up feature, as described in the
Cytec
Retirement Plan 2015 Voluntary Correction Program (and their
beneficiaries, if they are deceased or incompetent).
The Court approved a Classwide Notice on June 26, 2018.
By January 2019, the Court received notice that the parties have
reached a tentative settlement agreement, and the case was
administratively stayed pending approval.
The Settlement Agreement obligates the Defendants to pay
approximately $1.825 million to resolve the claims of all the class
members. Notably, the Settlement Agreement broadens the Class
Definition to include:
All vested participants in the Plan who elected or have a right
to
elect an optional joint and survivor benefit and who are, were or
would be subject to a reduction of monthly benefits as a result
of
the imposition of charges attributable to the cost of the pop-up
feature under the Plan's optional joint and survivor benefits
(and
their beneficiaries, if they are deceased or incompetent).
The Settlement provides for settlement funds to be divided among
the "in pay" and "not in pay" groups. The "in pay" group consists
of the Class Members whose benefits commenced on or before Oct. 1,
2018. The amount of $1.540 million is allocated to this group and
will compensate these individuals with 75% of the cost arising from
the pop-up charge. In contrast, the "not in pay" group consists of
individuals who have not yet elected, but may, in the future,
choose to elect a form of benefits for which a pop-up charge is
applied. Because the number of individuals in this group is
unknown, the value of the "not in pay" group's recovery cannot be
determined, but the actuarily based estimated value is $285,000.
The Participating Class Members agree to release all claims related
to the implementation of the pop-up charge. The Class Members can
elect to receive Settlement benefits in a variety of ways that are
all actuarially equivalent. The Settlement will be administered by
the Defendants, at their sole cost, and individual recoveries will
not be reduced by attorney fees or other costs, which were
negotiated separately.
The Settlement has obtained preliminary approval, and the
Plaintiffs now seek final approval. The Class Counsel additionally
seeks an award of $350,000 in attorney fees, $37,000 in costs, and
a $5,000 Case Contribution Award to Mr. Claudet.
On review, Judge Fallon is satisfied that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and accordingly, granted final approval of
the Settlement.
As to the issue of attorney fees and costs, the Judge concludes
that the requested award of $350,000 in attorney fee is reasonable,
and the award of $37,000 in costs is appropriate, particularly
because it in no way diminishes the recovery of each individual
class member. Lastly, the $5,000 award for Mr. Claudet is
warranted. Judge Fallon approves the requested fees.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/W5IvY2 from Leagle.com.
DIRECT ENERGY: Claims in Stanley Suit on Utility Rates Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA STANLEY, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-3759 (KMK) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
Linda Stanley commenced the complaint asserting claims against
Direct Energy for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the New York
General Business Law ("NYGBL"), and, in the alternative to breach
of contract, unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant breached the promises it purportedly made when offering
"competitive" utility rates based on the "market" in its variable
rate plan and, instead, went on to charge prices that were
allegedly untethered to any understanding of "competitive" or
"market" prices in the industry. Plaintiff also purports to
represent a class of the Defendant's customers in a similar
situation.
In the 1990s, state legislatures and agencies decided to partially
deregulate the market for retail electricity supply. However, in
an effort to curb any potential abuse in rate-setting by new energy
suppliers are known as "ESCOs," the New York legislature passed
NYGBL Section 349-d. The statute states that no person who sells
or offers for sale any energy services for, or on behalf of, an
ESCO will engage in any deceptive acts or practices in the
marketing of energy services. It also provides that in every
contract for energy services and in all marketing materials
provided to prospective purchasers of such contracts, all variable
charges will be clearly and conspicuously identified.
On Dec. 30, 2009, one such ESCO (and the Defendant's predecessor),
NYSEG Solutions, LLC offered to provide the Plaintiff with a
competitive fixed rate for electricity supply services. The offer
included the general terms of the agreement and provided the
Plaintiff with a three-day window to rescind any agreement with
NYSEG Solutions. The Plaintiff accepted the offer.
On Nov. 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received a renewal notification
from NYSEG Solutions and the Defendant. The letter explained that,
on Aug. 23, 2012, the Defendant had acquired NYSEG Solutions. The
letter offered a renewal at a fixed rate for six months, and the
terms attached to the letter explained that, unless a future
renewal notification explained otherwise, the account would
automatically convert to a monthly variable price agreement after
those six months.
On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff received another renewal notification
from NYSEG Solution. The letter explained that the new "Agreement
Term" was "Monthly," that the "Renewal Price" was "Variable," and
again noted that NYSEG Solutions had been acquired by the
Defendant, although it would continue to call itself NYSEG
Solutions.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to provide the
competitive pricing it had promised. To support her argument,
Plaintiff includes within the Amended Complaint data from the 24
recent billing periods - beginning in November 2016 and ending in
November 2018 - comparing the Defendant's charged rate per kilowatt
hour with the rates of the local utility service. Her calculations
allege that, throughout that period, the Defendant charged between
40% to 172% more than the local utility rate. The Plaintiff also
includes a second table comparing the Defendant's rates with what
Plaintiff alleges are "Market Supply Costs." According to her,
other ESCOs incur these costs as well, yet they offer substantially
lower rates than the Defendant.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant should not be permitted to
charge high rates out of alignment with the comparators set forth
in the Amended Complaint. She also alleges that the Defendant's
statements in the Renewal Notifications and accompanying terms
regarding its rates were "materially misleading" because they
failed to provide her or the other customers with any price
savings.
The Plaintiff alleges that she brings the Action on behalf of all
of Defendant's customers in the United States who were legacy NYSEG
Solutions and/or Energetix, Inc. customers who were charged a
variable rate for electricity services by the Defendant between
April 2013 and the present. She also purports to represent a
Subclass of the Defendant's customers in New York who were legacy
NYSEG Solutions and/or Energetix customers who were charged a
variable rate for residential electricity services by the Defendant
between April 2013 and the present.
The Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that there are common questions
of law or fact to both the Class and Subclass regarding whether
Defendant breached its consumer contracts by failing to charge
variable rates commensurate to "market conditions." Additionally,
she alleges that violations of NYGBL Section 349-d would be
applicable to all members of the Subclass.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff brings breach of contract
claims, claims under the NYGBL, and an unjust enrichment claim
based on Defendant's variable rate pricing scheme.
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss. It argues
that none of the Plaintiff's alleged rate comparators is
appropriate; that it did not breach any actionable term within its
renewal contract with the Plaintiff; that the NYGBL claims are
time-barred and/or meritless; that the claim for implied breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be dismissed as
duplicitous of the breach of contract claims; and that any unjust
enrichment claim is barred by the existence of a written contract.
The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege standing on behalf of either the Class or
Subclass to bring such claims.
Judge Karas granted the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss with respect
to the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim and to limit the scope
of her NYGBL Section 349(d)-7 arguments but denied it on all other
grounds.
Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff alleges that
she (and other members of the alleged Class) entered into valid
contracts with the Defendant for the provision of the electricity.
The Defendant has stated that it does not dispute the contract's
existence, and the Plaintiff herself has admitted that she must
abandon the claim should a valid contract exist between the
Parties. Therefore, there is no bona fide dispute concerning the
existence of a contract, and the cause of action for unjust
enrichment fails and should be dismissed. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment collapses into the contract
dispute.
Also, the Judge is not confident enough in the clarity of the
language of the Renewal Notifications to rule as a matter of law
that the existence of a variable rate plan was "clearly and
conspicuously" disclosed to the Plaintiff. And the Plaintiff has
made at least one allegation to suggest that the existence of the
variable rate plan itself was not clear to her.
Therefore, although the Judge forecloses the Plaintiff from making
the argument that the Defendant was required to disclose the exact
methodology for calculating the variable rate plans under NYGBL
Section 349(d)-7, he finds it plausible that a reasonable jury
could find that the Defendant's disclosure itself fails to be
conspicuous. Accordingly, the Judge does not entirely dismiss the
Plaintiff's Section 349(d)-7 claim but does limit the scope of it.
As the Plaintiff has already amended her Complaint once, the
dismissal is with prejudice. Therefore, the Action will proceed on
the remaining claims. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
requested to terminate the pending Motion.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/ewWAkk from Leagle.com.
Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq. -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com --
Todd Seth Garber, Esq., Chantal Khalil, Esq., Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, White Plains, NY, Counsels
for Plaintiff
William Franklin Cash, III, Esq. -- bcash@levinlaw.com -- Matthew
David Schultz, Esq., Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Eschsner
& Proctor, P.A., Pensacola, FL, Counsels for Plaintiff
Andrew Kasner, Esq. -- andrew.kasner@mhllp.com -- Michael D.
Matthews. Esq., Diane Wizig, Esq., McDowell Hetherington LLP,
Houston, TX, Counsels for Defendant.
Steven Miles Lucks, Esq., Fishkins Lucks LLP, Newark, NJ, Counsel
for Defendant.
DONALD TRUMP: Black Lives Matter Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C., et
al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01469-DLF (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs
including Garrett Bond, Dustin Foley, Kishon McDonald, Lia Poteet,
Toni Sanders, and Keara Scallan move the Court for an order:
1. certifying the following two classes of individuals
present at Lafayette Square and/or the surrounding area on
June 1, 2020 around or shortly after 6:30 p.m.:
Injunctive Relief Class:
"all individuals present at Lafayette Square, defined here
as the area in Washington, D.C. between the north side of
the White House and H Street NW and between Madison Place
and Jefferson Place NW, or the streets or sidewalks
adjacent to or surrounding Lafayette Square (including
specifically: H Street NW between 15th and 17th Streets
NW, Vermont Avenue between H and I Streets NW, 16th Street
between H and I Streets NW, and Connecticut Avenue between
H and I Streets NW, including all the intersections of the
named streets), on June 1, 2020, at, around, or shortly
after 6:30 pm, who may attend or attempt to attend
protests at this location in the future"; and
Personal Injury Class:
"all individuals present at Lafayette Square, defined here
as the area in Washington, D.C. between the north side of
the White House and H Street NW and between Madison Place
and Jefferson Place NW, or the streets or sidewalks
adjacent to or surrounding Lafayette Square (including
specifically: H Street NW between 15th and 17th Streets
NW, Vermont Avenue between H and I Streets NW, 16th Street
between H and I Streets NW, and Connecticut Avenue between
H and I Streets NW, including all the intersections of the
named streets), on June 1, 2020, at, around, or shortly
after 6:30 pm, who incurred any injury, illness, or
impairment as the result of the Defendants' actions."
2. appointing Ms. Sanders, Mr. Bond, Ms. Poteet, and Mr.
Foleythe as class representatives for Injunctive Class,
and appointing Ms. Sanders, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Bond, Ms.
Scallan, Ms. Poteet, and Mr. Foley for Personal Injury
Class; and
3. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United
States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and
television personality.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Freedman, Esq.
David E. Kouba, Esq.
Thomas D. McSorley, Esq.
Sonia Tabriz, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
E-mail: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
David.Kouba@arnoldporter.com
Tom.McSorley@arnoldporter.com
Sonia.Tabriz@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
Michael Perloff, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 457-0800
E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org
aspitzer@acludc.org
mperloff@acludc.org
- and -
Kaitlin Banner, Esq.
Tristin Brown, Esq.
Dennis Corkery, Esq.
Hannah Lieberman, Esq.
Jonathan Smith, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS'
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
tristin_brown@washlaw.org
dennis_corkery@washlaw.org
hannah_lieberman@washlaw.org
jonathan_smith@washlaw.org
- and -
Jon Greenbaum, Esq.
Arthur Ago, Esq.
David Brody, Esq.
Arusha Gordon, Esq.
Noah Baron, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS UNDER LAW
1500 K Street N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 662-8600
E-mail: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
aago@lawyerscommittee.org
dspence@lawyerscommittee.org
dbrody@lawyerscommittee.org
agordon@lawyerscommittee.org
nbaron@lawyerscommittee.org
DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Liang Suit Moved From California to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Lude Liang v. Douyu International Holdings Limited,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02747, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on September
4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07234-ALC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged securities
violations.
Douyu International Holdings Limited is a provider of video live
streaming service based in China.
Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC is a multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered at 1585 Broadway in the
Morgan Stanley Building, Midtown Manhattan, New York City. J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company
headquartered in New York City. BofA Securities, Inc. is an
investment banking company based in New York. CMB International
Capital-Limited is a financial services company headquartered in
Hong Kong, China. Tencent Holdings Limited is a multinational
technology conglomerate holding company headquartered in Shenzhen,
China. Cogency Global Inc. is a legal services provider based in
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bid to Nix Daily Fantasy Sports Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
DraftKings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation,
remains pending.
Between late 2015 and early 2016, certain individuals who allegedly
registered and competed in daily sports fantasy contests on the
company's and FanDuel's websites, and their family members, filed
numerous actions (primarily purported class actions) against the
company, FanDuel, and other related parties (the "DFS defendants")
in courts across the United States.
In February 2016, these actions were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On September 2, 2016, the consolidated
group of plaintiffs filed their First Amended Master Class Action
Complaint, superseding their original class action complaint, which
superseded their individual complaints.
The plaintiffs assert 27 claims arising under both state and
federal law against the DFS defendants. The plaintiffs' claims
against the company generally fall into four categories: (1) the
company's online daily fantasy sports contests constitute illegal
gambling; (2) the company promulgated false or misleading
advertisements that emphasized the ease of play and likelihood of
winning; (3) the company induced consumers to lose money through a
deceptive bonus program; and (4) the company allowed its employees
to participate in competitors' fantasy sports contests using
non-public information, which gave such employees an unfair
advantage over other contestants. The plaintiffs seek money
damages, equitable relief, and disgorgement of gains against the
company.
On November 16, 2016, the DFS defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration against all named plaintiffs except one plaintiff
asserting claims against the DFS defendants as a concerned citizen
of the State of Florida (the "Concerned Citizen Claims").
On November 27, 2019, the Court granted the DFS defendants' motion
to compel arbitration with respect to all named plaintiffs other
than a small set of plaintiffs who are family members of
individuals who have DraftKings or FanDuel accounts and who assert
claims under various state laws regarding gambling (the "Family
Member Plaintiffs").
On March 9, 2020, the DFS defendants moved to dismiss the Family
Member Plaintiffs' claims and the Concerned Citizen Claims. On
April 7, 2020, an opposition to the motion to dismiss the Concerned
Citizen Claims was filed. On April 20, 2020, the Family Member
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the DFS defendants' motion to
dismiss, and on April 29, 2020, the Family Member Plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend the First Amended Class Action
Complaint.
On May 11, 2020, the DFS defendants filed their reply in support of
their motion to dismiss the Family Member Plaintiffs' claims and
the Concerned Citizen Claims, and on May 13, 2020, the DFS
defendants filed their opposition to the Family Member Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the First Amended Master Class Action
Complaint.
On March 5, 2020, one named plaintiff with respect to whom the
motion to compel was granted filed a renewed motion to remand his
case to state court. On May 29, 2020, the company filed an
opposition to that motion.
The company intends to vigorously defend this case. If the
plaintiffs were to obtain a judgment in their favor in this
lawsuit, the company could be subject to substantial damages and it
may have to withdraw its DFS operations in certain states. The
company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of
this lawsuit.
DraftKings said, "We are unable to estimate the possible loss or a
range of possible losses in connection with the In Re: Daily
Fantasy Sports Litigation (Multi-District Litigation) matter
because, among other reasons, (i) the proceeding is in a
preliminary stage; (ii) there are significant factual issues to be
resolved and (iii) there are novel legal issues to be resolved.
Despite the potential for "significant damages", we do not believe,
based on currently available information, that the outcome of this
proceeding will have a material adverse effect on DraftKings'
financial condition, although the outcome could be material to
DraftKings' operating results for any particular period, depending,
in part, upon the operating results for such period."
DraftKings Inc. operates as a digital sports entertainment and
gaming company. The company provides users with daily sports,
sports betting, and iGaming opportunities. It is also involved the
design and development of sports betting and casino gaming platform
software for online and retail sportsbook, and casino gaming
products. The company distributes its product offerings through
various channels, including traditional websites, direct app
downloads, and direct-to-consumer digital platforms. DraftKings
Inc. is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
DURACELL COMPANY: Siddle Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as STANLEY F. SIDDLE and MICHAEL
E. LIPSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. THE DURACELL COMPANY, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
TECHNOMATE MANUFACTORY, LTD., PRO-TEK INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00568-JD (N.D. Cal. ), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on September 24, 2020 for an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement;
2. provisionally certifying the proposed Settlement Class:
"all persons in the United States who purchased a three-
pack of Duracell 350L flashlights bearing the date code
1533, 1534, or 1535 on the flashlight end cap."
The Settlement Class excludes all person in the United
States who have received three Replacement Flashlights
from Pro-Tek. Also excluded from the Settlement Class is
any individual who timely and validly opts out of the
Settlement Class, as well as any retailers, wholesalers,
and other individuals or entities that purchased the Class
Flashlights for resale, as well as Defendants' current and
former officers and directors, members of the immediate
families of the Defendants' officers and directors, legal
representatives, and the judicial officers to whom this
Action is assigned. Also excluded from the Settlement
Class are any individuals to whom the Notice disseminated
was returned undeliverable ("RUM") by mail to the
Settlement Administrator and for whom there is no valid
address, after reasonable efforts including skip tracing
have been employed to acquire a valid current physical
address and/or email address, and in the absence of a
Claim being otherwise received from such individuals by
the Administrator.;
3. appointing themselves as Class Representatives;
4. appointing Timothy Rumberger as Class Counsel;
5. appointing P&N as Settlement Administrator;
6. approving the class notice plan; and
7. scheduling the final approval hearing.
The Settlement provides a common fund of $2.2 million for: 1) the
distribution to the Class of cash payments; 2) the Plaintiffs'
attorney's fees, costs, and incentive awards as ordered by the
Court; and 3) settlement notice and administration costs. The Class
Members will receive payments on a pro-rata basis likely between $6
and $8 per package of Class Flashlights purchased. Because the
Flashlights were sold through Costco, business records are
available to provide direct notice to the vast majority of Class
Members, and automatic payments will be made to over 70-95% of
Class Members without requiring those Class Members to file a
claim.
This case is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
Costco-member consumers who purchased Duracell-branded LED
flashlights, manufactured by Duracell licensee Technomate
Manufactory, packaged with Duracell batteries included, marketed in
collaboration with and distribution by Duracell's retail partner
Costco, within four years of the date this action was initially
filed, January 31, 2019.
Duracell is an American manufacturing company owned by Berkshire
Hathaway that produces batteries and smart power systems. The
company has its origins in the 1920s, through the work of Samuel
Ruben and Philip Mallory, and the formation of the P.R. Mallory
Company. Costco is an American multinational corporation which
operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs. Technomate is
headquartered in Hong Kong. The company's line of business includes
the wholesale distribution of electrical apparatus.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
1339 Bay Street, Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone: (510) 841-5500
Facsimile: (510) 521-9700
E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com
EPPING GARDENS: More Families Joining Age Care Home Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matilda Coleman, writing for Upnewsinfo, reports that Sebastian
Agnello is the lead plaintiff in the class action against
Melbourne's Epping Gardens aged care home, after his mother Carmela
died in hospital following her treatment in the facility.
Melbourne's Epping Gardens aged care facility experienced a
COVID-19 outbreak that has since led to at least 205 COVID-19 cases
so far.
She'd been sent for a standard check-up, but doctors found her
dehydrated, riddled with infections and positive for COVID-19.
"She looked like a scared mouse, her eyes were rolling around in
her head and she just didn't know where she was," Mr Agnello told
Upnewsinfo.
The great-grandmother is one of at least 20 Epping Gardens
residents to die from coronavirus, and there are still many others
still struggling to survive.
Resident Maureen O'Brien, who has been moved from the facility to
hospital, is now refusing to return.
Maureen O'Brien, who has been moved from the facility to hospital,
is now refusing to return. (Supplied)
"Her next thought was, don't send me back to Epping Gardens at all
because you may as well finish me off," her daughter, Donna, said.
She says her mother witnessed a baby shower allegedly held on-site
at Epping Gardens during Melbourne's lockdown period that included
a large group of people.
"She was ringing her bell all night and no-one came… She
struggled out to the nurses station and she saw a decent amount of
people there," Ms O'Brien said.
"She thought, well if there's that many people here why couldn't
they answer my bell?"
All in attendance at the party, including some individuals from
outside the facility, went on to test positive for coronavirus.
The class action lawsuit alleges Epping Gardens management breached
resident contracts and failed in their duty of care.
Mr Agnello's family say they want the company deregistered.
"Everyone's talking, I see Daniel Andrews talking, I see Scott
Morrison talking, but are we acting? Are we making changes?" his
wife, Suzanne, said.
"My mother-in-law didn't deserve what happened to her in her last
three days of life, truthfully."
Any trial linked to the class action could still be at least 12
months away, but lawyers behind the movement have said more
families are joining the lawsuit every day and is motivating others
to also consider legal action.
Epping Gardens management has denied any claims of neglect. [GN]
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Seeks for Writ of Mandamus in Munguia-Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Equity Residential, ERP Operating Limited Partnership,
and Equity Residential Management, LLC, filed a petition for a writ
of mandamus in the lawsuit entitled Munguia-Brown, et al. v. Equity
Residential, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a federal
district court judge in Oakland, California, has given the go-ahead
for tenants of one of the largest landlords in America to pursue a
class-action lawsuit alleging unlawful and excessive fees to
renters, who are late on payments.
Notices to current and former tenants of Equity Residential's
properties went out after U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S.
White certified the class action, which argues that the company's
practice of charging a fee of either $50 or 5 percent of the total
delinquent rent when tenants are only one day late violates
California anti-profiteering statutes.
The Company, founded and headed by billionaire Sam Zell, is the
third largest private owner of apartments in the United States,
with 78,000 units across six states, according to the National
Multifamily Housing Council. Company filings show California is its
largest market, with more than 36,000 units in 150 properties in
Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area.
The tenants also argue that the company's practice of "stacking
late fees" by charging an additional penalty when rent is current
but an old late fee is outstanding is illegal under California
law.
In court papers, company attorneys had argued that the fees were
legal and that the class action should not be certified because
"individual issues predominate." A spokesman for Equity Residential
did not return multiple calls seeking comment for this story.
Among the plaintiffs is child care worker Javanni Munguia-Brown,
who was raising three children in one of the company's East Palo
Alto apartments. She said she paid her rent and all fees one day
early in March 2014. However, the company assessed an automatic $50
late fee because she had a balance of $200 in previous late fees
and $122 in city administrative fees and water and sewer charges.
The appellate case is captioned as Equity Residential, et al. v.
USDC-CAOAK, Case No. 20-72661, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a real estate investment
trust; ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a partnership; and EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC are represented by:
Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
750 B Street
San Diego, CA 92101-4681
Telephone: (619) 744-2222
E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com
- and -
Justin Jeremy Fields, Esq.
Paul J. Killion, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
Telephone: (415) 957-3141
Facsimile: (415) 520-0421
E-mail: jfields@duanemorris.com
pjkillion@duanemorris.com
Real Parties in Interest JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, ANGELINA MAGANA,
NORMA RODRIGUEZ, and DAVID BONFANTI, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
Laura L. Ho, Esq.
Andrew P. Lee, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-9800
E-mail: ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com
lho@gbdhlegal.com
alee@gbdhlegal.com
- and -
Craig Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jason H. Tarricone, Esq.
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO
1861 Bay Road
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: (650) 326-6440
E-mail: jason@clsepa.org
FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company")
(NYSE:FSLY) of the October 26, 2020 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.
If you invested in Fastly stock or options between May 6, 2020 and
August 5, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/FSLY. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.
CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all those who
purchased Fastly securities between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020
(the "Class Period"). The case, Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc. et al,
No. 20-cv-06024 was filed on August 27, 2020.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that
Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which
was known to have serious security risks and was under intense
scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that
Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse
actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S.
government; and (3) that, as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Specifically, on August 5, 2020, after market close, the Company
hosted an earnings call for its Q2 2020 results. On the call,
Company CEO Joshua Bixby revealed for the first time that
"ByteDance, the operator of TikTok[,] was our largest customer in
the quarter." Bixby also suggested on the call that ByteDance was a
significant customer in Q1 as well, stating that "over the last six
months, [TikTok] represents just about 12% of revenue, trailing 6
months ending June 30."
On this news, Fastly's stock fell from a closing price of $108.92
per share on August 5, 2020 to $89.64 per share on August 6, 2020-a
$19.28 or 17.70% drop.
That same day, August 6, 2020, President Trump issued an executive
order that would take effect in 45 days and prohibit any U.S.
company or person from transacting with ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese
parent company.
On this news, Fastly's shares continued to decline, dropping
another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020,
or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Fastly's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 18
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC)
resulting from allegations that Fennec may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
On August 11, 2020, Fennec issued a press release announcing
receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug
Application ("NDA") for the Company's PEDMARK product, a
formulation of sodium thiosulfate for intravenous administration
for the ototoxicity associated with cisplatin chemotherapy. The
press release stated that "[a]ccording to the CRL, after recent
completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing
facility of our drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified
deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions
or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval
of PEDMARK."
On this news, Fennec's stock price fell $3.51 per share, or 34%, to
close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020, damaging investors.
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Fennec's investors. If you purchased shares of
Fennec, please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1926.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email 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]
FIDELITONE LAST: Caballero Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as AMERICA CABALLERO, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. FIDELITONE LAST MILE, INC.
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG20069582, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on September 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-06281 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failure to reimburse employment expenses, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay wages earned in violations of
California Labor Code and and/or Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order and for unfair competition in violation of California
Business and Professions Code.
Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc., is a supply chain management firm based
in Wauconda, Illinois.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Seth L. Neulight, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8200
Facsimile: (415) 984-8300
E-mail: sneulight@nixonpeabody.com
- and –
Erin Holyoke, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 South Grand Ave., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 629-6000
Facsimile: (855) 803-1806
E-mail: eholyoke@nixonpeabody.com
FIRST FINANCIAL: Must Face FDCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that First
Financial Investment Fund V must face class action claims brought
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Utah law in
connection with their efforts to pursue judgments on defaulted
debts without appropriate state registration, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah said.
Judge Robert J. Shelby's the Aug. 17 order certified two classes,
one for class claims arising under the FDCPA, and another for class
claims brought under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act. Because
the UCSPA doesn't allow a plaintiff to seek statutory damages on
behalf of a class, Shelby certified that class for liability
purposes only. [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or
the "Company") (NYSE:FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
FirstEnergy investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation
FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio, is an electric utility
company. The action alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and
prospects. In particular, defendants boasted of FirstEnergy's
legislative "solutions" to difficulties with its nuclear
facilities, but failed to disclose that those "solutions" revolved
around an illicit campaign to influence state lawmakers to support
legislation favoring the Company. For nearly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates channeled more than $60 million to
state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry
Householder, to ensure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"),
which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout of
FirstEnergy's failing nuclear facilities. Defendants also falsely
stated that they were in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations throughout the Class Period, when in reality they were
exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks of
legal, financial, and reputational damage.
On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Speaker
Householder and four other persons, including a lobbyist for
FirstEnergy, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and
bribery scheme. The criminal complaint and affidavit described an
alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy influenced the
legislative process in order to guarantee the passage of HB 6,
including by defending the bill against a citizens ballot
initiative to overturn the bill. Prosecutors described the case as
the "largest bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history. On
this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock fell $7.01 per share, or
almost 17%, from its closing price of $41.26 on July 20, 2020, to
close at $34.25 on July 21, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article providing
additional details regarding the Company's illicit actions in
connection with the scheme. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy
stock dropped an additional $7.16, or 20.9% from its closing price
of $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020, to close at $27.09 on July
22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN]
GENIUS BRANDS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on Aug. 18
announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Genius
Brands International, Inc. ("Genius" or the "Company") and Chief
Executive Officer Andy Heyward (collectively, "Defendants").
The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and captioned Verdin v. Genius
Brands Int'l, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-07457, asserts claims under
§§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§78j(b), and 78t(a), on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of
Genius Brands (sold under the ticker symbol "GNUS" on the NASDAQ
Market in the United States) from March 17, 2020 through July 5,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged
thereby.
Genius is a multimedia company that licenses entertainment content
for children.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning
Genius's Rainbow Rangers intellectual property, the Kartoon
Channel! app that Genius launched in June of 2020, as well as its
joint venture relating to intellectual property associated with
Marvel creator Stan Lee.
On July 6, 2020, after Genius announced the creation of a joint
venture with POW! Entertainment regarding the intellectual property
Stan Lee created following his tenure at Marvel Entertainment,
Genius's share price declined over 25% to close at $2.66 per
share.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.
If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Plaintiff's counsel, Joe Pettigrew of Scott+Scott, at (844)
818-6982 or via email at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia.
[GN]
GIRARD, OH: Ohio Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Fox, writing for The Vindicator, reports that the Ohio
Supreme Court will not take up an appeal in the class action suit
being pursued against Girard and the company the city uses to
operate its speeding ticket cameras.
The suit seeks restitution for people who received tickets between
Dec. 7, 2017, and Jan. 8, 2018, in the westbound lane of Interstate
80 in Girard.
The state's highest court declined jurisdiction on Aug. 18 in an
attempted appeal requested by the defendants, after the 11th
District Court of Appeals dismissed the original appeal in April.
Marc Dann, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he expects to file a
motion in the next few weeks or months asking Judge Andrew Logan of
Trumbull County Common Pleas Court to make a ruling on a request
for summary judgment.
"We should be able to wrap the case up soon," Dann said.
If the judge sides with the plaintiffs and grants a request for
summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor, a jury will be selected
to determine damages, Dann said.
The city of Girard and Blue Line Solutions filed the appeal about a
year ago in the district appeals court seeking to overturn a
judgment issued by Logan that defined the groups of people allowed
to participate in the class action suit.
The plaintiffs contend they received tickets for speeding in a
construction zone that was not a construction zone. Although the
speed limit was lowered to 55 mph while the segment of road was
under construction, it automatically reverted back to 65 mph when
the construction was completed, according to Ohio law — but the
signs were not removed immediately.
Girard issued 7,733 citations through its contracted company, Blue
Line Solutions, according to court documents.
Logan defined the classes of people who could participate in the
suit into groups.
The first subclass is made up of people who paid some type of fine,
penalty or fees; the second is anyone who did not pay anything. Of
those cited, 6,784 paid a fine and 949 did not, according to court
documents.
More than 150 people have joined the suit.
Dann is seeking funds for the people who paid the fines, legal
costs for those who joined the suit and would like to see a jury
award punitive damages as well, he said.
Girard and Blue Line Solutions argued the classes Logan defined are
too broad and would allow people to participate who were speeding,
who were not actually harmed by the erroneous ticket or who did not
appeal the ticket through formal channels.
The 11th District Court of Appeals found no merit in the arguments
and determined Logan's class definitions are reasonable.
A voice message and an email seeking comment were left on Aug. 18
with attorney Robert Cahill, who is representing the city in the
case.
Dann said the case has been proceeding through the discovery stage
since the appeal with the 11th District was dismissed.
"I wish we could have settled this two years ago," Dann said.
Dann said he doesn't expect to the case to go to trial because he
doesn't believe the facts of the case are in dispute.
"For that period of time they set their machinery with the wrong
inputs. It is not in dispute anymore," Dann said.
Girard police officers used equipment provided by Blue Line
Solutions to take photographs of vehicles traveling faster than the
programmed limit. The police officers verified the snapshots before
sending them off to Blue Line to print and sent the citations. The
company keeps 40 percent of the fines people paid. [GN]
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Antiticompetitive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Insider reports that an antitrust lawsuit lodged against
Google alleges the search giant participates in anticompetitive
practices including exclusionary behavior associated with a 30% fee
on Play Store transactions.
Lodged in California federal court by law firm Hagens Berman, the
suit seeks monetary and injunctive relief against Google for
alleged anticompetitive practices and supracompetitive Google Play
distribution and in-app payment processing fees. Plaintiff Pure
Sweat Basketball is named as the case's sole plaintiff, though the
law firm is soliciting other developers to come forward and join as
part of a larger class.
According to a press release, the lawsuit aims to shine a light on
Google's "ongoing abuse of its market power, including the
exclusion of competition, the stifling of innovation, the
inhibition of consumer choice, and Google's imposition on app
developers of a supracompetitive 30% transaction fee." Google, like
Apple, takes a slice of app store payments and in-app purchases,
including subscriptions.
Google leverages "overwhelming market power" to extract "more money
from developers than they should have to pay" for app distribution,
attorneys say. The suit claims violation of the Sherman Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
"This high fee artificially raises the price of the products sold
there," the suit reads. "But for Google's exclusionary behavior,
the Android app market would have more, and more meaningful and
effective, competition."
Google further bundles its Play Store with other standard Google
apps as part of the Android operating system, providing it a leg up
over competing stores.
"Its overbearing contracts and practices steal oxygen even from
well-resourced competitors such as Amazon, robbing the marketplace
of innovative means of distributing apps at lower costs to
developers," according to the lawsuit.
Hagens Berman is no stranger to cases critical of big tech dealings
and is often sought as counsel for lawsuits involving Apple. In
2019, the law firm leveled a similar class-action complaint against
the iPhone maker for its $99 developer fee and App Store pricing
structure. The firm was also involved in suits targeting iPhone
throttling and refurbished AppleCare+ replacements. In 2013, Hagens
Berman successfully argued a class-action suit on e-book price
fixing that resulted in a $450 million settlement to consumers.
"For years, Google has gotten away with widespread anticompetitive
practices that hold app developers hostage and rob them of profits
they would otherwise receive for their work product," said Steve
Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman. "We have
taken on Google and Apple for what we believe to be improper and
unlawful behavior that harms app developers, and for consumers, we
have filed suit against Amazon as to its monopolistic behavior that
have driven up the cost of essential goods during the COVID-19
pandemic."
While both Apple and Google are under the microscope for potential
anticompetitive practices, it has until now been Apple that was
heavily scrutinized over its App Store business practices. In
addition to an ongoing U.S. antitrust investigation, the company
was hit with a private suit from Epic Games, which rails against
App Store fees. Epic also sued Google over identical issues. [GN]
GREENFIELD WORLD: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greenfield World Trade, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Greenfield World Trade, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07100 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).
Greenfield World Trade, Inc. supplies foodservice machinery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
GREGORYS COFFEE: Court Denies Partial Dismissal of Griffin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. GREGORYS COFFEE
MANAGEMENT LLC and GREGORY ZAMFOTIS, Defendants, Docket No.
153397/2018, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Kathryn E.
Freed of the New York County Supreme Court denied Defendants
Gregory Coffee Management LLC, Vida Gregorys Coffee Management
Inc., formerly known as Gregorys Coffee Inc., doing business as
Gregorys Coffee and Gregory Zamfotis' motion, pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7), to partially dismiss Plaintiff Griffin's amended
complaint.
On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking
certification of a class for claims against the Defendants for
violations of New York's Labor Law, specifically related to uniform
maintenance. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to
supply sufficient articles of uniform clothing consistent with the
average number of days worked per week. Plaintiff further alleged
violations of Article 19 of the New York Labor Law and its
supporting regulations in the New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations, including the New York State Hospitality Industry Wage
Order, and the former New York Minimum Wage Order for the
Restaurant Industry.
On May 18, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class
allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint. Defendants argued that
the Plaintiff could not pursue her claims in a class action because
she sought liquidated damages and because her claims were not
suitable for class treatment. Following oral argument on the
motion, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss,
specifically finding that the Plaintiff's class claims had to fail
because she requested liquidated damages. On May 21, 2019, the
Defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the
Plaintiff's complaint.
On June 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which
she alleged that she was employed by the Defendants as a barista
and manager from July 2015 through Jan. 8, 2018. Plaintiff
maintained that the Defendants were considered a large fast food
employer in the hospitality industry, having at least 11 or more
employees during the duration of her employment. The Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendants failed to supply her with sufficient
articles of uniform clothing consistent with the average number of
days, which she worked per week.
The Plaintiff commenced the captioned action on her own behalf and
as a class consisting of all current and former employees who
worked for Defendants in the State of New York during the Class
Period who were (a) required as a condition of their employment to
wear a uniform that required daily washing and were not furnished
in sufficient number or reimbursed by the employer for a sufficient
number of uniforms, consistent with the average number of days per
week worked by the employee, and were not provided uniform
maintenance pay or reimbursement; and (b) required to purchase
uniforms and were not reimbursed by the Defendants for the total
cost of the uniform.
The Plaintiff further alleged violations of Article 19 of the New
York Labor Law and its supporting regulations in the New York
Codes, Rules, and Regulations, including the Wage Order, and the
former New York Minimum Wage Order for the Restaurant Industry.
Plaintiff also alleged claims for malicious prosecution and abuse
of process which arose out of a criminal proceeding.
The Defendants move, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), for an order
partially dismissing the Plaintiff's amended complaint. They
contend that the Plaintiff's claims are not suitable for class
treatment pursuant to CPLR 901 because they require highly
individualized inquiries, which are not common to the class. They
argue that the Plaintiff asserts a claim for uniform maintenance
pay alleging that they failed to supply articles of a uniform
consistent with the average number of days per week worked. The
Defendants contend that the Wage Order provides that where an
employer does not maintain required uniforms for any employee, the
employer will pay the employee, in addition to the employee's
agreed rate of pay, uniform maintenance pay at the weekly rate set
forth.
The Defendants argue that the Wage Order provides for a wash and
wear exception to the uniform maintenance pay. They argue that the
Court would have to conduct an individualized inquiry because each
potential class member may have unique job responsibilities or
schedules, which will have to be evaluated. The Defendants also
argue that the Plaintiff's request with respect to the uniform
reimbursement fails. Finally, Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
has no class-wide method of proving damages and that the class
cannot be defined until the case is resolved on the merits.
In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that there are two potential
classes. They argue that the first class deals with the
sufficiency of the number of uniforms consistent with the numbers
of days worked per week. The second class includes employees who
were required to purchase uniforms and who were not reimbursed for
the cost of the uniform. The Plaintiff maintains that courts in
New York have acknowledged classes of workers who are owed uniform
maintenance pay for a hospitality establishment. She argues that
contrary to the Defendants' contention, she is seeking a
narrowly-tailored class consistent with the alleged violation.
Since discovery will help the Court to determine whether the
potential plaintiff in the class share a common interest, and
eliminate factual issues which presently exist due to the lack of
the exchange of relevant information, Judge Freed denied at this
time the part of Defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the first
and second cause of actions for reimbursement for uniform
maintenance costs and the costs for additional uniform.
Judge Freed also finds that the Plaintiff's amended complaint sets
forth a cause of action for malicious prosecution. The Plaintiff
alleges that there was an initiation of a criminal proceeding by
the Defendant against the Plaintiff; that there was termination of
the proceeding in her favor; that there was a lack of probable
cause; and that the Defendants acted with malice as the Plaintiff
alleges that she never trespassed or stole money and suggests that
the charges were filed in a retaliatory manner. The commencement
of the discovery process will allow both the Plaintiff and the
Defendants to further explore this cause of action. Therefore, the
part of the Defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the cause of
action for malicious prosecution must be denied.
The Judge further finds that the Plaintiff's amended complaint has
set forth a cause of action for abuse of process. The Plaintiff's
amended complaint as well as her affidavit appears to speak to the
use of the judicial process for purposes other than for which
process is intended, specifically a retaliation for commencing
litigation for unpaid wages. Determinations as to the Defendants'
interactions concerning the criminal action and the objective
underlying their alleged conduct, cannot be disposed of in the
motion and prior to the exchange of relevant discovery which will
clarify the facts pertaining to initiation of the criminal action.
Therefore, that branch of the Defendants' motion seeking to dismiss
the claim for abuse of process must be denied.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, Judge Freed denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Griffin's amended complaint pursuant
to CPLR 3211(a)(7).
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2020 Decision + Order is
available at https://is.gd/MXMv1L from Leagle.com.
H&E EQUIPMENT: Coleman Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CHARISMA COLEMAN, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. H&E
EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. RG20069157, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on September 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06280 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failure to reimburse employment expenses, and
failure to provide meal and rest periods in violations of
California Labor Code and for unfair competition in violation of
California Business and Professions Code.
H&E Equipment Services, Inc., is an integrated equipment services
company based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
Soojin Kang, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
Soojin.Kang@lewisbrisbois.com
- and –
Nolan W. Kessler, Esq.
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Telephone: (916) 564-5400
Facsimile: (916) 564-5400
E-mail: Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com
INTEL CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:INTC) between April
23, 2020 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Intel securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Intel Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its
7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that,
as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its
production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was
reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for
manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to
its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and
(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.
On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed
production delays for its 7-nanometer products after the Company
had "identified a defect mode in our seven-nanometer process that
resulted in yield degradation."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.81, or
approximately 16% to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020.
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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Intel securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/intelcorporation-intc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-288/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
KODAK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Insider Trading
------------------------------------------------------
WHAM reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed following
recent allegations of insider trading involving Kodak.
The Portnoy Law Firm says the lawsuit was filed on behalf of
investors who obtained stock in Kodak between July 27 and August
7.
On July 28, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
signed a letter of intent with Kodak, offering a $765 million loan
to shift the company into the pharmaceutical production industry.
News of the agreement sent Kodak's stocks soaring.
Days later, the SEC was called on to investigate allegations of
insider trading on the part of Kodak leaders.
Kodak has said it will cooperate with any inquiries -- however
stocks took a tumble as the DFC said its deal with the company was
being put on hold.
According to the Portnoy Law Firm, the complaint alleges Kodak did
not disclose that individuals inside the company had been granted
stock options worth millions of dollars prior to the DFC
announcement -- and that individuals inside the company purchased
tens of thousands of shares prior to the public announcement. The
complaint reportedly alleges Kodak's public statements were
misleading, and that investors took a hit because of that.
13WHAM has reached out to Kodak for comment. [GN]
LILLY LASHES: Angeles Files Suit under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Lilly Lashes, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lilly Lashes, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07097 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).
Lilly Lashes is worn by Hollywood's biggest celebrities like Kim
Kardashian, Kylie Jenner, JLo.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Faces Briand Class Suit Alleging Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS BRIAND, individually, on behalf of himself, the general
public and on behalf of all other persons and class similarly
situated v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, aka: MTA, doing business in the County of Los Angeles as
a Public Entity, Under Laws of and in the State of California, a
business organization whose form is unknown, individually, et al.,
Case No. 20STCV32385 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 25,
2020), alleges that the Defendants are responsible in some manner
for certain events and happenings to the Plaintiff that legally
caused him injury and damages.
The other Defendants are METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, aka: MTA,
doing business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity,
Under Laws of and in the State of California, a business
organization whose form is unknown, individually; COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, aka: MTA, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity, Under
Laws of and in the State of California, a business organization
whose form is unknown, individually; MTA, dba: LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, doing business in the County
of Los Angeles as a Public Entity, Under Laws of and in the State
of California, a business organization whose form is unknown,
individually; MTA, dba: METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity, Under
Laws of and in the State of California, a business organization
whose form is unknown, individually; MTA, dba: COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, doing business in
the County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity, Under Laws of and in
the State of California, a business organization whose form is
unknown, individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and
in his and her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA
BUS DRIVER and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the
County of Los Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.#
5703 individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in
his and her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS
DRIVER and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County
of Los Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 5715
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 9324
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 9357
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 5023
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 9584
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 9511
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving First Bus No. #212
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Second Bus No.# 212
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 5600
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 5717
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 8459
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Third Bus No.# 212
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 8630
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Fifth Bus No.# 212
individually; JANE DOES, aka BUS DRIVER #78773, individually, and
in her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS
DRIVER and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County
of Los Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 8484
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 8628
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 8483
individually; JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, individually, and in his and
her official capacity as a MTA ROUTE DRIVER and/or MTA BUS DRIVER
and/or MTA EMPLOYEE and/or MTA WORKER in and for the County of Los
Angeles for the State of California, Driving Bus No.# 5676
individually; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive.
The Plaintiff asserts causes of action against each DOE Defendant,
who allegedly acted with malice and oppression and with the intent
to vex, annoy, frighten, and severely injure the much older
Plaintiff, who is past the age of 50. The Plaintiff seeks punitive
damages against the Defendants to punish and make an example of the
Defendants. The Plaintiff also seeks leave of court to amend this
complaint to show the Doe Defendants' true names and capacities
after they have been ascertained.
As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants' malicious
conduct, the Plaintiff alleges he has suffered a loss of earned
income, loss of future earned income, and diminished earning
capacity in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the general public and on
behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated, appears
pro se.[BN]
LOUISIANA: Court Junks 2 Motions to Strike in McZeal Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFRED McZEAL, ET AL., v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL,
Civil Action No. 19-517-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Under
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Motion to
Strike under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case is a purported class action in which the Plaintiffs are
seeking relief for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), federal civil rights laws, and for state
law fraud.
On Sept. 6, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because
the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
There is no dispute that the Defendants mailed a copy of the motion
to the Plaintiffs for the purposes of service on Sept. 9, 2019.
On Sept. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motions to
Strike. They seek an order striking the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss from the record on the basis that the Defendants did not
mail a copy of the Motion to Dismiss until three days after the
motion was filed into the record. The Plaintiffs' second Motion to
Strike incorporates a merit-based opposition to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Bourgeois holds that neither Rule 12(c) nor Rule 12(f)
provides a mechanism for striking or otherwise denying the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Rule 12(c) allows a party to move
for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. The
Plaintiffs are not moving for judgment on the pleadings and the
time for filing pleadings in the action is not closed. A motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a "pleading"
as defined by Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Furthermore, the timing of the Defendants' service of the Motion to
Dismiss does not provide a basis for striking or otherwise denying
that motion. Rule 5, which governs the service of motions, does
not provide a deadline for service of a motion by mail after it is
filed. Instead, the rule provides that the mailing of a motion to
a person's last known address constitutes service of a motion in
which event service is complete upon mailing.
There is no dispute that the Defendants mailed a copy of the Motion
to Dismiss to the Plaintiffs on Sept. 9, 2019. Service of the
motion was complete upon its mailing. Under the Court's local
rules, the 21-day deadline for the Plaintiffs to respond to the
motion was triggered upon service of the motion, not the filing of
the motion in the record. In addition, the Plaintiffs were
provided an additional three days to respond because service of the
motion was by mail. Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiffs to
file an opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was Oct. 3,
2019.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bourgeois finds no basis for
striking the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Judge
acknowledges, however, that the Plaintiffs timely opposed the
motion. The Judge will consider their arguments in addressing the
merits of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Bourgeois denied the Plaintiffs'
Motions Motion to Strike. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
remains pending. The Plaintiffs are deemed to having timely
opposed the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants may,
without obtaining further leave of court, file a reply memorandum
in support of their Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/GU0BGF from Leagle.com.
LOWE'S HOME: Obtains Dismissal of Alminiana FLSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT ALMINIANA, STACEY PFLUG, REBECCA McPHEE, KATIE
SHOOK, AND IRIS TIRADO, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-00010-KDB-DSC (W.D. N.C.),
Judge Kenneth Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina adopted Magistrate Judge David Cayer's
Memorandum and Decision ("M&R") and thus granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
Scott Alminiana and Stacey Pflug are dismissed as Plaintiffs and
compelled to arbitrate their claims in accordance with their
arbitration agreements with Defendant, Judge Bell ordered in June
26, 2020 Decision available at https://bit.ly/3hHDTKB from
Leagle.com.
A copy of Magistrate Judge Cayer's June 9, 2020 M&R is available at
https://is.gd/tK19sw from Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs Scott Alminiana and Stacey Pflug are former employees of
Defendant Lowe's Home Centers LLC, a retail company specializing in
home improvements.
Alminiana worked at an Oregon Lowe's store as an hourly loss
prevention and safety manager from 2016 until January 2019. In
January 2019, Lowe's offered Alminiana a promotion to department
supervisor. Alminiana accepted the offer by electronically signing
an online decision form, where he acknowledged that he had read the
terms and conditions set forth in the Offer Letter. Included in
the offer letter was an agreement to arbitrate all claims with
Lowe's, applicable to all positions Alminiana may hold as an
employee of Lowe's.
In accepting the offer, Alminiana agreed that any controversy
between him and Lowe's arising out of his employment or the
termination of his employment will be settled by binding
arbitration. The arbitration provision further specifies that it is
intended to be broad and to cover, to the extent otherwise
permitted by law, all such disputes between Alminiana and Lowe's
including but not limited to those arising out of federal and state
statutes and local ordinances, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and any similar federal, state and local laws. The
agreement also includes a class and collective action waiver, which
makes clear that there will be no right or authority for any
dispute to be arbitrated as a class action or collective action.
Pflug on the other hand worked for Lowe's in New York as an hourly
service manager from May 2017 to May 2018. In accepting a May 2018
position as a sales specialist, Pflug agreed to arbitrate any and
all claims that she may have against Lowe's. Like Alminiana, Pflug
specifically acknowledged that she had read the terms and
conditions set forth in her offer letter, including the arbitration
provision. The arbitration provision in Pflug's offer letter makes
clear that it is intended to be broad, and that it applies to any
controversy arising out of her employment or the termination of her
employment. Like Alminiana, Pflug expressly agreed to arbitrate
any claims against Lowe's, including claims under the FLSA and
similar state laws. Pflug's arbitration agreement also includes a
class and collective action waiver with language identical to the
waiver contained in Alminiana's arbitration agreement.
Plaintiffs Alminiana, Rebecca McPhee, Pflug, Katie Shook, and Iris
Tirado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought a collective and class action Complaint against
Defendant Lowe's on Jan. 30, 2020. Three months later, the
Defendant filed a 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration
of Plaintiffs Alminiana and Pflug's claims.
Judicial estoppel precludes a party from adopting a position that
is inconsistent with a stance taken in prior litigation. The 4th
Circuit has articulated three requirements for judicial estoppel:
(1) the party sought to be estopped must be seeking to adopt a
position that is inconsistent with a stance taken in prior
litigation; (2) the prior inconsistent position must have been
accepted by the court; and (3) the party sought to be estopped must
have intentionally misled the court to gain unfair advantage.
In his M&R, Magistrate Judge Cayer found that the first part of the
test is met. The Plaintiffs filed a stipulation in a different
FLSA action before the Court where they agreed to withdraw as
opt-in Plaintiffs because they were subject to valid arbitration
agreements with Lowe's. The second part is satisfied because in
Danford, Magistrate Judge Keesler, having carefully considered the
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs and the record, entered an Order
dismissing Alminiana and Pflug from that FLSA collective action.
Lastly, the third part of the test is met because while the
Plaintiffs were willing to concede the validity of their
arbitration agreements when they were part of the larger Danford
collective action, they refuse to do so now, knowing that their
arbitration agreements could doom their claims -- and their state
law class claims -- in the lawsuit. Because all three parts of the
test for judicial estoppel are satisfied, the Plaintiffs cannot
challenge the validity of their agreements to arbitrate.
To establish that evidence is authentic, a proponent need only
present evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims. The Magistrate Judge found
that the Defendant has sufficiently authenticated the Plaintiffs'
electronic acceptances of their offer letters, including the
arbitration agreements therein. The Plaintiffs' decision forms
establish that they were submitted through Lowe's standard
application process for hourly employees. The forms include their
names and email addresses, which could only have been added through
use of their unique login credentials. Further supporting the fact
that the Plaintiffs filled out the forms, Alminiana's decision form
indicates that he responded to the offer at 3:58 p.m. on Jan. 15,
2019, consistent with Lowe's job portal logs indicating that a
notification of his offer letter was sent to his email address at
3:52 p.m. Similarly, Pflug's offer letter shows that she submitted
her decision form at 10:04 a.m. on May 5, 2018, and an email
notifying her of her offer letter was sent at 9:15 a.m. that same
day.
Having established that the Plaintiffs accessed and submitted their
decision forms, there can be no doubt that those decision forms
evince acceptance of the offer letters' terms. In response to the
prompt "to accept or decline the offer of employment" with Lowe's,
Alminiana and Pflug each accepted the terms of the offer. Their
responses further affirm that they read the terms and conditions
set forth in the Offer Letters e-mailed to them and that it was
their intent to accept these terms and conditions. Finally, the
Plaintiffs' responses acknowledge that their electronic acceptances
were the legal equivalent of having placed their handwritten
signatures on the Offer Letters. The Plaintiffs' decision forms
are therefore unequivocal in their acceptance of the offer letters'
terms.
And thus, Magistrate Judge Cayer recommended that the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Compel Arbitration
be granted.
LUCKIN COFFEE: AP7 Group Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTIN COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01293-LJL (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lewis J.
Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York appointed the AP7 Group as the Lead Plaintiff, and appointed
its counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, as the class counsel.
Presently before the Court are competing motions from the following
movants: Luckin Investor Group; Sjunde AP-Fonden ("AP7") and
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund ("Louisiana Sheriffs")
("AP7 Group"); Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund; Wai Chun Shek; and
Chaile Steinberg. Each of these movants seeks appointment as the
Lead Plaintiff in a class action securities case against Luckin and
certain other Defendants.
The case alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Each
movant also proposes its respective retained counsel as the class
counsel.
Luckin is a company based in the People's Republic of China that
sells coffee, other drinks, and a variety of food items. On May
17, 2019, Luckin completed an initial public offering of its
American Depository Shares. It completed a secondary offering on
Jan. 10, 2020.
On Jan. 31, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report stating
that Luckin had fabricated key financial performance metrics.
Luckin's stock price dropped immediately and substantially in the
wake of the report's publication. A series of actions was then
filed in the Court and in the Eastern District of New York
("Related Actions"), alleging that Luckin's offerings violated the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and asserting claims for
relief.
According to the complaints, Luckin failed to disclose material
information and made false and misleading public statements. In
particular, the complaints alleged that Luckin inflated sales and
revenue numbers, overstating the Company's financial health and
rendering other of Luckin's public statements materially false
and/or misleading.
Luckin initially denied the Muddy Waters Research report's
allegations, but on April 2, 2020, Luckin publicly announced that
investors should not rely on the Company's previous financial
statements. Following an internal investigation, Luckin announced
that high-level employees at the Company had in fact fabricated
certain transactions amounting to millions of dollars in sales
revenue. The revelation led to another precipitous drop in the
Company's stock price.
On Feb. 13, 2020, pursuant to PLSRA requirements for prosecuting a
securities class action, notice was published on Globe Newswire
advising prospective class members of the pendency of this action,
the alleged claims, the class definition, the class period, and the
60-day deadline by which any applicant should seek appointment as
the Lead Plaintiff. Several parties moved for the consolidation of
the Related Actions into a single class action suit against Luckin
and certain other Defendants, which the Court granted on May 15,
2020. As noted, five movants now seek appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff in the consolidated suit, as well as the appointment of
their respective counsel as the class counsel.
Judge Liman finds that the AP7 Group is the party with the largest
financial interest that also satisfies all other requirements under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. He will
therefore appoint the AP7 Group as the Lead Plaintiff and appoints
its counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, as the class counsel.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the AP7 Group's motion. The Judge
appointed the AP7 Group as the Lead Plaintiff, and appointed its
counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, as the class counsel.
The Judge therefore denied the remaining motions for appointment to
the Lead Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/naNiva from Leagle.com.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phil Muncaster, writing for Infosecurity Magazine, reports that
Marriott International is set for another courtroom showdown with
victims of a major data breach announced in 2018, affecting 339
million global customers.
Tech journalist Martin Bryant, 41, has reportedly filed a
collective action lawsuit on behalf of the estimated seven million
former guests of the hotel giant from England and Wales whose
personal data was compromised.
Represented by law firm Hausfeld, Bryant is claiming damages for
loss of control of personal data, under the UK's Data Protection
Act 1998 and the EU General Data Protection Regulation, according
to the Financial Times.
"Personal data is increasingly critical as we live more of our
lives online but, as consumers, we don't always realize the risks
we are exposed to when our data is compromised through no fault of
our own," he told the paper.
The suit comes on the back of other legal action in the US and
Canada.
It comes after UK data protection regulator the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) has come in for criticism after
delaying its final decision on the size of the fine to be levied.
The ICO originally issued a notice of intent in July 2019 to fine
Marriott £99m for security failings that led to the incident.
However, the company has since made representations to the
regulator in an attempt to dial down the fine.
Originally extended to May 2020, the final decision from the ICO is
now likely in September.
However, the latest legal action proves that regulatory fines are
only one small part of the total costs of a data breach that victim
organizations can expect to pay.
"As well as being subject to GDPR and the legal, financial and
reputational implications that come with it, organizations have a
duty of care to their customers," argued Stuart Reed, UK director
of Orange Cyberdefense.
"Preventative measures are simply not sufficient. There must also
be ongoing monitoring of key systems and robust response procedures
in place to minimize the impact should the worst happen and a
breach occur." [GN]
MCCLATCHY CO: Still Defends Fresno and Sacramento Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that the company continues to defend the class
action styled Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") and
a substantially similar lawsuit styled Sawin v. The McClatchy
Company ("Sacramento case") related to mileage reimbursement.
In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra
v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers
were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement.
In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class
consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500
carriers in the Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are
seeking unspecified restitution for mileage reimbursement.
With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage
and hour claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code. In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an equitable
claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.
The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and
restitution. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento
case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding
that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee
during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were
misclassified as independent contractors.
The company objected to the tentative decision, but the court
ultimately adopted it as final. In June 2016, The McClatchy Company
was dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the
sole defendant. On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of
decision ruling that the court would not hold a phase two trial but
would, instead, assume liability from the evidence previously
submitted and from the independent contractor agreements. The
company objected to this decision, but the court adopted it as
final. The third phase began on June 20, 2019, and is ongoing.
The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate
phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and
liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was
designated to address restitution, if any.
The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of
2014 and concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court
in the Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of
the company and The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no
second phase. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November
10, 2016.
McClatchy said, "We continue to defend these actions vigorously and
expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not
established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we
believe that a material impact on our condensed consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows from these
claims is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a
possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact. We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The McClatchy Company provides news and advertising services in
digital and print formats in the United States. Its publications
include the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee,
The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News and Observer, The (Fort
Worth) Star-Telegram, and The (Durham, NC) Herald-Sun. The
McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Harassment Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a $500
million sexual harassment lawsuit filed by two workers at a Florida
McDonald's involves allegations of individualized mistreatment and
lacks the makings of a class action, McDonald's Corp. and two
subsidiaries told an Illinois federal court.
Jamelia Fairley and Ashley Reddick's April 10 lawsuit improperly
seeks to pursue claims for all female employees below the general
manager level at more than 100 corporate-owned and -operated
McDonald's in Florida, even though they only worked a single
location in Sanford, the companies said on Aug. 17 in seeking to
strike the class allegations.
The suit implicates "a diverse set of interactions" between
thousands of women and their co-workers and necessarily lacks the
common questions of fact needed for class treatment, McDonald's
said. Fairley and Reddick each identified different co-workers as
their alleged harassers, their alleged harassers worked for their
restaurant at different times, and their specific allegations of
harassment differ, the companies said.
Individualized evidence regarding any harassment that was reported
and the actions taken in and the timing of a specific restaurant's
response also make the case unsuitable to proceed as a class
action, the companies said.
Fairley and Reddick's broad assertion of inadequate corporate-level
policies and procedures isn't enough to establish the commonality
needed for class certification, the companies said.
The only common policy they identified is one prohibiting workplace
sexual harassment and retaliation, the companies said. And how that
policy was implemented and enforced varied based on decision-making
at the store level, the companies said.
The companies in a separate motion on Aug. 17 also seek dismissal
of Fairley's and Reddick's individual allegations.
The two women improperly lump their allegations against all three
companies together without delineating the alleged wrongful acts of
each company, according to the motion to dismiss. They attempt to
circumvent that lack of specificity by alleging the three companies
are a "single enterprise" or "joint employers," but they failed to
back those characterizations with specific facts, the motion said.
Fairley and Reddick also failed to exhaust their common-policy
argument by not including it in their Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission charges, the companies said. And Reddick's sexual
harassment claim is time-barred and her retaliation claim is
implausible, the companies said.
Werman Salas PC and Altshuler Berzon LLP represent the proposed
class. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP represents McDonald's
Corp., McDonald's USA LLC, and McDonald's Restaurants of Florida
Inc.
The case is Fairley v. McDonald's Corp., N.D. Ill., No.
1:20-cv-02273, motions to strike class allegations, dismiss suit
8/18/20. [GN]
MEDLEY LLC: Lax and Dicristino Putative Class Suits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the purported class action suits entitled, Helene Lax v.
Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino,
et al. v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No. 650510/2019, have been
dismissed.
On May 11, 2020, the court approved a settlement and dismissed two
purported class actions that had been commenced in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by alleged
stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned,
respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action, the "New York
Actions").
Named as defendants in each complaint were Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital
Corporation, the Company, Sierra Income Corporation (“Sierra”),
and Sierra Management, Inc. ("Merger Sub").
The complaints in each of the New York Actions alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed mergers of Medley Capital Corporation
with and into Sierra and the Company with and into Merger Sub, and
that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties. Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts
were sought.
The defendants vigorously denied any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims that were asserted, or which could
have been asserted, in the New York Actions.
None of the Defendants paid any consideration to the plaintiffs in
connection with the dismissal.
The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the New York Actions in exchange
for Medley Capital Corporation's agreement to pay $50,000 in
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.
Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors. The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between US$50 million and
US$1 billion.
MEDLEY LLC: October 21 Hearing on Settlement in Virginia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that a settlement has been reached in the consolidated class
action currently pending in Virginia.
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on
February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, Class Action 1").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and
Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions").
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the
"Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class
Actions, the "Class Action Complaints").
The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.
The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1.
In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives had
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In
Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim
to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from
February 2015 through April 2018.
In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff
representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan
in 2017.
By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October
29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of all claims.
On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a
settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") that has been publicly filed in Class Action 1 (ECF No.
414-1).
Among other things, upon satisfaction of the conditions specified
in the Settlement Agreement and upon the Effective Date, the
Settlement Agreement:
(1) requires Plaintiffs to seek certification of a nationwide
settlement class of all persons in the United States to whom
American Web Loan lent money from February 10, 2010 through a
future date on which the Court may enter a Preliminary Approval
Order as to the Settlement Agreement (which certification
Defendants have agreed not to oppose);
(2) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to
pay Monetary Consideration of $65,000,000 (none of Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation,
Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth
Taube are paying any Monetary Consideration pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement);
(3) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to
cancel (as a disputed debt) and release all claims that relate to
or arise out of the loans in its Collection Portfolio, which is
valued at $76,000,000 and comprised of loans to more than 39,000
borrowers (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube have any interest in any of the
loans that are being cancelled);
(4) requires American Web Loan and Curry to provide certain
Non-Monetary Benefits (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP,
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are conferring any
Non-Monetary Benefits pursuant to the Settlement Agreement);
(5) fully, finally, and forever releases Medley Opportunity
Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube
from any and all claims, causes of action, suits, obligations,
debts, demands, agreements, promises, liabilities, damages, losses,
controversies, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees of any nature
whatsoever, whether arising under federal law, state law, common
law or equity, tribal law, foreign law, territorial law, contract,
rule, regulation, any regulatory promulgation (including, but not
limited to, any opinion or declaratory ruling), or any other law,
including Unknown Claims, whether suspected or unsuspected,
asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, actual or
contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, punitive or compensatory,
as of the date of the Final Fairness Approval Order and Judgment,
that relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the name of
AWL (including loans issued in the name of American Web Loan, Inc.
or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order (with the exception of claims to enforce the
Settlement or the Judgment);
(6) provides for a mutual general release between Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation,
Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth
Taube on the one hand, and American Web Loan and Curry on the other
hand; and
(7) provides that, as of the future Effective Date, none of
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube shall (i) be entitled to indemnification from
AWL Defendants (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) or (ii)
bring any claim against any Released Parties, including American
Web Loan and Curry, that relate to or arise out of loans made by
and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the name of
American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception of
claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment).
The Settlement Agreement is subject to various conditions before it
will become effective on the Effective Date, including payment of
the Monetary Consideration, Final Approval by the Court of the
Settlement following Notice to the Settlement Class and a Final
Approval Hearing; entry of Judgment dismissing Class Action 1 with
prejudice; and expiration of the time during which Plaintiffs and
American Web Loan may exercise specified termination rights.
A hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion in Class Action 1 for final
approval of the settlement is scheduled for October 21, 2020.
Medley LLC is an alternative asset management firm offering yield
solutions to retail and institutional investors. The company
focuses on credit-related investment strategies, primarily
originating senior secured loans to private middle market companies
in the United States that have revenues between US$50 million and
US$1 billion.
MITRA MIDWEST: Franzen Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakki Franzen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MITRA MIDWEST OPERATIONS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01386
(E.D. Wis., Sept. 7, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws seeking to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, The Defendant violated the FLSA and
WWPCL by suffering or permitting the Plaintiff to perform work
without being properly or lawfully compensated for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours each workweek. Specifically, the Defendant's
unlawful compensation practice failed to compensate the Plaintiff
for all hours worked and/or work performed.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Shift Supervisor at its
Neenah, Wisconsin KFC location.
The Defendant owns, operates, and manages fast food franchised,
stores, and locations throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
NATIONAL AUTO: Court Dismisses Shanahan TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHERINE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AUTO PROTECTION
CORP., et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03788 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
John Robert Blakey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted (i) Matrix
Financial Services, LLC and Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc.'s (the
"Matrix Defendants") motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), and (ii) Nation Motor Club, LLC's motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
Shanahan commenced a putative class action against Defendants
National Auto Protection; the Matrix Defendants; and Nation Motor.
Plaintiff alleges that National Auto illegally called consumers'
telephones using an automatic system and artificial voice
recordings while acting as the agent of the other Defendants.
On June 3, 2019, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited phone call
on her cell phone. When she answered, she heard a prerecorded
voice message advertising extended automobile warranties and
informing her to "press one" for more information. The Plaintiff
did just that and the caller connected her to an agent who
reiterated that he was selling vehicle service contracts for
extended auto warranties. After speaking with the agent, she
decided to purchase a Service Plan.
Based upon subsequent emails regarding her Service Plan, the
Plaintiff realized that National Auto had been the company that
called and sold her the Service Plan. But when her Service Plan
contract and brochure arrived, the Plaintiff realized that although
National Auto sold her the Plan, a company named "Matrix"
administered the Plan, which she believes refers to the Matrix
Defendants. The Plaintiff also noticed that the Service Plan
directed her to contact Matrix Warranty Solutions to obtain service
but then listed Nation Motor as the administrator for all 24-hour
roadside assistance. Finally, Plaintiff alleges the contract noted
that Matrix Financial served as the Plan's financial administrator.
Following focused discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction,
the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, alleging violations
of: (1) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); (2) the
Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act; and (3) the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The Matrix Defendants sought to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's
claims under Rule 12(b)(2). They argued that the Plaintiff failed
to show either general or specific personal jurisdiction, and they
submitted a sworn declaration in support of their jurisdictional
arguments. Similarly, Nation Motor also sought dismissal for lack
of personal jurisdiction, and submitted a supporting declaration on
the issue.
As applied to corporations, Judge Blakey finds that the Court may
only exercise general personal jurisdiction in the state of the
corporation's principal place of business and the state of its
incorporation. Matrix Warranty is a Nevada corporation with its
principal place of business in Texas. Matrix Financial is a
Delaware company that maintains its principal place of business in
Texas. And Nation Motor is a Delaware company with its principal
place of business in Florida. The Plaintiff does not contest these
facts and ostensibly concedes that the relevant inquiry hinges upon
whether the Illinois Court may exercise specific (rather than
general) personal jurisdiction. Based upon the record, Judge
Blakely finds it does not possess general personal jurisdiction
over the Matrix Defendants or Nation Motor.
Next, the Court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction when
the defendants purposefully direct their activities at residents of
the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that
arise out of or relate to those activities. In the case then, any
specific personal jurisdiction over the Matrix Defendants and
Nation Motor must arise from the relevant phone call. The Matrix
Defendants and Nation Motor submit sworn declarations, however,
attesting that they did not call the Plaintiff or otherwise direct
their actions at Illinois as related to the suit.
Judge Blakely finds that the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently
demonstrate an agency relationship based upon actual authority.
Despite the Plaintiff's generalized allegation that contracts exist
between the Matrix Defendants, Nation Motor, and National Auto that
gave them significant control and authority over how National Auto
markets and sells the Service Plans, and notwithstanding discovery
on the matter, the Plaintiff fails to submit such contracts in
opposition to the instant motion.
In addition, despite multiple amendments to the complaint and the
availability of discovery on the relevant issues, the Plaintiff
fails to plausibly allege vicarious liability to create personal
jurisdiction through a theory of apparent authority. Finally, the
Plaintiff fails to rebut the Matrix Defendants' and Nation Motor's
sworn statements that they did not know and, therefore, did not
ratify the conduct. Given that the Plaintiff had the advantage of
discovery on the matter, Judge Blakely holds that the Plaintiff
failed to present sufficient ratification evidence to create a
plausible agency relationship for personal jurisdiction purposes.
For reasons explained, Judge Blakey granted the Matrix Defendants'
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granted
Nation Motor's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/7E7PgA from
Leagle.com.
NCAA: McKnight Seeks Damages for Neglect Over Football Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Byron McKnight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02260 (S.D. Ind., August 28,
2020), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.
Byron McKnight played football at the University of South Carolina
from 2007 to 2012, as a defensive end. He suffered from numerous
concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of
routine practice and gameplay. McKnight now suffers from short-term
memory loss and loss of concentration.
NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. McKnight alleges NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Tel: (312) 589-6370
Fax: (312) 589-6378
Email: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
329 Bryant Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Tel: (415) 212-9300
Fax: (415) 373-9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
- and -
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com
NEW JERSEY: Inmates Meet Requirements for Class Action Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stark & Stark Law Firm on Aug. 18 disclosed that former and current
inmates at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility For Women (EMCFW),
New Jersey's only women's prison, and for years the site of rampant
sexual discrimination, abuse and retaliation, have achieved a
significant victory in their legal battle for class-action
certification and reform at the notorious Hunterdon County
facility. The trial court, in a just unsealed opinion, found that
the Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for class-action treatment,
stating "all parties will ultimately benefit" from consolidation of
claims rather than holding individual trials. The court stopped
short of formally certifying the class, seeking direction from the
appeals court.
Following the unsealed July 20, 2020, opinion of the Appellate
Division, Hunterdon County New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael
F. O'Neill, reversed an earlier decision in the case of the court
in Brown et al. v. NJ DOC HNT-L-19, Civil Docket and indicated that
the plaintiffs have met the class-action standard to address
systemic problems at the prison. Previously, following argument on
the plaintiff's appeal of the prior class-action denial, the
appellate court had remanded the case to the trial court to
evaluate the requirements for class certification as well as the
recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) independent report
finding that sexual abuse had been a longstanding problem at the
prison that the administration had failed to address.
In its opinion and order remanding the case for reconsideration,
the court repeatedly cited the April 2020 DOJ Report. "The
overriding claim sought to be addressed is the hostile living
environment that is alleged to have pervaded at Edna Mahan for
decades. The DOJ Report cited multiple examples of investigations,
convictions, guilty pleas, etc. that are corroborative of the
allegations supporting that overriding claim." It added, "To
require inmates to file individual lawsuits seeking to end the
alleged toxic atmosphere at Edna Mahan would be impractical, and
economically unfeasible, to say the least."
The class action complaint was filed in 2017 on behalf of then
long-term inmates Marianne Brown and Judith Vasquez, and alleged
"decades of inappropriate sexual relationships, verbal and physical
harassment, rampant discrimination, and widespread assault at
EMCFW, creating a hostile environment based on the gender of
plaintiffs, and similarly situated inmates." The complaint, filed
in Superior Court, Hunterdon County, asserted that inmates were
subjected to "systematic, inappropriate and illegal treatment"
resulting from "a long-standing, prison-wide culture of abuse
within the institution." It also asserted that that such an
environment has a harmful effect on every woman who is immersed in
it, not only those who are the direct victims of sexual assault.
Oliver Barry and Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi &
Gillin-Schwartz and Martin Schrama and Stefanie Colella-Walsh of
Stark & Stark--attorneys for the plaintiffs--stated that this
decision, "Represents an important step towards addressing the
problems at the prison that permitted predatory corrections
officers to operate unchecked for years." However, they cautioned,
"The work is not done until the broken policies and culture at the
facility are fixed and until the women subjected to this toxic and
abusive environment are compensated for the damage it wrought."
The case is currently before the appeals court for further
direction. [GN]
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 9 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed nine appeals from the District Court's
rulings in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education,
et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
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 the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-338;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-350;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-367;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-369;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-440;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-442;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-443;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-467; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-639
Plaintiffs-Appellees Beverley Clarke, Marcella Paradise, Sonia
Nieves, Raquel Nery, Michelle Fullins, Desmond Nicholson, Merida
Pineda, Gladys Guimaraes and Lucy Rosario are 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 New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
- and/or -
Claude S. Platton, Esq.
ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
E-mail: cplatton@law.nyc.gov
NUNAVUT: November 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
You could be affected by a class action against the Government of
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories (the "Territories").
A lawsuit has been certified as a Class Action against the
Territories. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Territories
are responsible for sexual abuse inflicted on children and youth
who were taught by Maurice Cloughley. Sexual abuse may include
sexual assault by Cloughley, forced sexual contact with other
students, and being forced to pose naked for photographs.
The Representative Plaintiffs are RPC1 and RPC2 who were taught by
Cloughley and live in Nunavut.
BASIC INFORMATION
Why is there a notice? This lawsuit has been "certified" as a class
action. This means that the lawsuit meets the requirements for a
class action and may proceed to trial. If you are included in the
class, you may have legal rights and options before the Court
decides whether the claims being made against the Territories on
your behalf are correct. This notice explains all of these things.
A judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice is currently overseeing
this case. The case is known as RPC1 and RPC2 v. The Commissioner
of Nunavut and The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories (Court
File No. 08-16-722-CVC). The people who sued are called the
Plaintiffs. The Territories of Nunavut and The Northwest
Territories are the Defendants.
What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit says that the Territories
failed to protect children and youth who attended schools in
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories and who were taught by
Maurice Cloughley April 1, 1969 and July 30, 1981. The Court has
not decided whether the Plaintiffs or the Territories are right.
The lawyers for the Plaintiffs will have to prove their claims in
Court.
Why is this a class action? In a class action, people called the
"Representative Plaintiffs" (in this case, RPC1 and RPC2) sued on
behalf of other people who have similar claims. All of these people
are a "Class" or "Class Members". The Court resolves the issues for
all Class Members in one case, except for people who remove
themselves from the Class.
Who is a member of the Class? The Class includes: All former people
who were:
-- enrolled as students in schools owned or operated by the
Defendants in Nunavut Territory between April 1, 1969 and
July 30, 1981;
-- exposed to Maurice Russell Cloughley ("Cloughley") during the
time Cloughley was employed by either Defendant as a teacher in the
community where the Class Member lived; and
-- sexually assaulted by Cloughley while they were in his
charge, or were made to be subjects of child pornography by
Cloughley, or were made to engage in sexual activities with other
children by Cloughley, or some combination of these forms of sexual
exploitation.
What are the Plaintiffs asking for? The Plaintiffs are asking for
money or other benefits for the Class. They are also asking for
lawyers' fees and costs.
Is there any money available now? No money or benefits are
available now because the Court has not yet decided whether the
Territories did anything wrong, and the two sides have not settled
the case. There is no guarantee that money or benefits will ever be
obtained. If they are, you will be notified about how to ask for
your share.
YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
You must decide whether to stay in the Class or whether to remove
yourself, and you have to decide this by November 2, 2020. If you
do nothing, you will automatically remain in the lawsuit. You will
be bound by all Court orders in this case, good or bad, and the
Representative Plaintiffs will have authority to resolve your
claim. If money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified
about how to ask for a share.
Residents who do not want to be a part of the class must opt out by
sending a written notice on or before November 2, 2020 to the Class
Administrator. Otherwise, you will be bound by the Court's judgment
whether favourable or not.
If you are having difficulty completing the Opt-In form, you can
call 1-866-329-7153 for assistance.
By opting out, will my name be made public? No.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
Do I have a lawyer in the case? Yes. The Court has appointed the
law firms of Cooper Regel and Morris Martin Moore to represent you
and other Class members as "Class Counsel".
How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will only be paid if
they win a trial or if there is a settlement. The Court has to also
approve their request to be paid. The fees and expenses could be
deducted from any money obtained for the Class, or paid separately
by the Defendant.
A TRIAL
How and when will the Court decide who is right? If the lawsuit is
not dismissed or settled, the Plaintiffs will have to prove their
claims at a trial that will take place in the Territory of Nunavut.
During the trial, a Court will hear all of the evidence, so that a
decision can be reached about whether the Plaintiffs or the
Territories are right about the claims in the lawsuit. There is no
guarantee that the Plaintiffs will win any money or benefits for
the Class. All Class Members will be bound by the result whether
positive or not.
Will I get money after the trial? If the Plaintiffs obtain money or
benefits as a result of a trial or settlement, you will be notified
about how to ask for a share or what your other options are at that
time. These things are not known right now. Important information
about the case will be posted on the website.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
How do I get more information? You can get more information at
www.cloughleysexualabuseclassaction.ca. by emailing
inquiry@cloughleysexualabuseclassaction.ca, by calling toll free at
1-866-329-7153 or by writing to Cloughley Sex Abuse Class Action,
117 Queen St, P.O. Box 1000, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, L0S 1J0.
[GN]
ORACLE: Faces Class Action Over Collection of Users' Data
---------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that it may be the largest
privacy-related class action in history, as The Privacy Collective
gears up for a class action against Oracle and Salesforce. The
action alleges the unlawful large-scale collection and storage of
internet users' data in Denmark. Allegedly, the data was shared
with multiple commercial and AdTech companies. [GN]
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss 2 Stockholders Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits in
Baltimore City, Maryland court against the company are still
pending.
On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, alleged stockholders filed
class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative claims against
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, MVP Realty
Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, and Vestin Realty Mortgage II
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, captioned Arthur Magowski
v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003125 (filed on May
31, 2019) (the Magowski Complaint) and Michelle Barene v. The
Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27,
2019) (the Barene Complaint).
The Magowski Complaint asserts purportedly direct claims on behalf
of all stockholders (other than the defendants and persons or
entities related to or affiliated with any defendant) for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from the Company's
decision to internalize its advisory function.
In this Complaint, Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the stockholders
have allegedly been directly injured by the internalization and
related transactions.
The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duty arising from substantially similar
allegations as those contained in the Magowski Complaint.
The purportedly direct claims are asserted on behalf of the same
class of stockholder as the purportedly direct claims in the
Magowski Complaint, and the derivative claims in the Barene
Complaint are asserted on behalf of the Company.
On September 12 and 16, 2019, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Magowski and Barene complaints, respectively. The
Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things, damages;
declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin the
internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.
The actions are at a preliminary stage. The Company and the board
of directors intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand
would be made on the Board to take action with respect to claims
belonging to the Company for the alleged injury to the Company.
On June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the
Board asserting the same alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the
Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the
alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to
the Company. The demand includes that claims be initiated against
the same defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint.
In response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019,
the Board established a demand review committee of one independent
director to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing made in the
letter and to make a recommendation to the Board for a response to
the letter.
On September 27, 2019, the Board replaced the demand review
committee with a special litigation committee. The special
litigation committee is responsible for investigating the
allegations of wrongdoing made in the letter and making a final
determination regarding the response for the Company to the demand.
The work of the special litigation committee is on-going.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss SIPDA Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the Company and its Board of Directors are
seeking dismissal of an Amended Complaint in the class action suit
initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust ("SIPDA").
On March 12, 2019, stockholder SIPDA Revocable Trust (SIPDA) filed
a purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors. SIPDA filed an
Amended Complaint on October 11, 2019.
The Amended Complaint purports to assert class action claims on
behalf of all public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between
August 11, 2017 and April 1, 2019 in connection with the (i) August
2017 proxy statements filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder
approval for the merger of the Company and MVP I (the proxy
statements), and (ii) August 2018 proxy statement filed with the
SEC to solicit proxies for the election of certain directors (the
2018 proxy statement).
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the 2017
proxy statements failed to disclose that two major reasons for the
merger and certain charter amendments implemented in connection
therewith were (i) to facilitate the execution of an amended
advisory agreement that allegedly was designed to benefit Mr.
Shustek financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to
give Mr. Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize
based on terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement. The
Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
2018 proxy statement failed to disclose the Company's purported
plan to internalize its management function.
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements
that allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to
state material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iii) that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the members of the
class and to the Company.
The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages; declaratory relief; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.
On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff. The litigation is still at a preliminary stage.
On January 9, 2020, the Company and the Board of Directors moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Company and the Board of Directors have reviewed the
allegations in the Amended Complaint and believe the claims
asserted against them in the Amended Complaint are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend this action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
PAULSCORP LLC: Katt Asserts Breach of ADA in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
PaulsCorp, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as David
Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PaulsCorp, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02670-STV
(D. Colo., Sept. 1, 2020).
PaulsCorp, LLC is a real estate investment and development firm.
The company builds, develops, and manages various aspects of real
estate, including residential, industrial, and office.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Potter Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
PotNetwork Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative
class action suit entitled, Potter v. Potnetwork Holdings, Inc.,
Diamond CBD, Inc., and First Capital Venture Co., CASE NO.:
19-24017-CV-SCOLA, US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
Plaintiff Potter has alleged that she purchased certain products
from Diamond CBD that contained levels of CBD that were less than
the amount stated on the packaging.
Potter is seeking class action status.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss that was granted in part
and denied in part.
The litigation is continuing and is in the discovery stage. There
is no estimate of potential damages at this time.
PotNetwork Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides online breaking news
and videos straight from the cannabis industry. PotNetwork Holdings
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: RICO Claim in Donaldson Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DONALDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRIMARY
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. ELH-19-1175
(D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the
Primary Residential's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(2).
The putative class action concerns an alleged kickback scheme
between Defendant Primary Residential and All Star Title, Inc.
Plaintiffs Donaldson and Walter and Dawn Sperl, who are mortgagors,
have sued Defendant PRMI, alleging that PRMI made referrals of
their loans and the loans of others to All Star for title and
settlement services and, in exchange, All Star laundered payments
to PRMI, largely through third party marketing companies. As a
result of the scheme, the Plaintiffs allegedly paid inflated
settlement fees.
In particular, the Plaintiffs allege that the kickback scheme
violates Section 8(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA") (Count I) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") (Count III). The Complaint, which is
about 60 pages in length, is supported by more than 40 exhibits.
According to the Plaintiffs, Primary Residential, through its
agents and employees, received and accepted illegal kickbacks from
All Star in exchange for the assignment and referral of residential
mortgage loans, refinances and reverse mortgages to All Star for
title and settlement services. Further, they assert that the
borrowers of PRMI absorbed the supracompetitive charges for title
and settlement services, because the charges were financed into the
borrower's loans. In furtherance of the scheme, the Plaintiffs
contend that Primary Residential laundered the kickbacks through
third party marketing companies, and "continuously and regularly
used the U.S. Mail and interstate wires, in furtherance of the
scheme, over a period of at least five years.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), PRMI has moved to dismiss the suit in
its entirety, on the threshold ground that the Plaintiffs lack
Article III standing because they have not adequately alleged an
injury-in-fact. In particular, the Defendant asserts that the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the prices they paid
for title settlement services were, in fact, supracompetitive,
because they fail to plausibly allege what the competitive price
would have been. In addition, PRMI contends that the Plaintiffs
have not adequately alleged any monetary injury-in-fact, and any
non-monetary injury is not concrete or particularized. The
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.
All Star is not a party to the case. But, All Star's conduct is at
issue and in other suits in the District. The Plaintiffs' lawyers
in the case are also counsel to the Plaintiffs in the other cases
involving All Star in the District.
Judge Hollander is persuaded by PRMI's arguments that the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a concrete injury. At
this stage of the litigation, the Court must assume the truth of
the allegations in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs need not prove
that they suffered concrete financial injuries. Rather, they must
plausibly allege that they did. Donaldson and the Sperls have
plausibly alleged concrete, financial injuries in the form of
overpayments. These allegations are sufficient to plead a claim of
injury-in-fact. Therefore, they have adequately pleaded Article
III standing.
The Judge is also satisfied that the Plaintiffs have adequately
pleaded facts that plausibly allege that the payments were not
within the ambit of RESPA's safe harbor. They have alleged that
the payments were not for marketing services but, instead, were
kickbacks for referrals. They also alleged that the payments were
made solely for referrals, and that the payments were not for the
provision of title services. The Plaintiffs may not succeed on
their claim. But that is not the test. They have plausibly
alleged that the payments from All Star to the third party
marketing companies do not fall within Section 8's safe harbor
provision.
Next, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have pleaded
sufficient allegations to show acts of concealment and, in turn, to
set forth a basis for equitable tolling. And she cannot conclude,
as a matter of fact or law, that the Plaintiffs failed to exercise
due diligence. The Plaintiffs point out that they have
specifically alleged that they were not on notice of any of the
facts giving rise to their RESPA claims. They allege that they
exercised due diligence before, during, and after the closings of
their loans, by reviewing all pre-closing documents, participating
in the closings, reviewing HUD-1s, and, upon receiving letters from
counsel describing the investigation into All Star and Primary
Residential, retaining counsel within days. The Plaintiffs also
assert that it is a fact issue for the jury to determine. The
Defendant is not entitled to dismissal of the suit based on
limitations.
The heart of the Plaintiffs' RICO claim involves a structure that
they have simply failed to allege. Accordingly, the Judge
concludes that they have failed plausibly to allege a RICO
enterprise. To be sure, the Plaintiffs posit that they are masters
of the Complaint and are therefore entitled to limit their RICO
claim to that of a bilateral enterprise. But, to interpret the
Complaint as they urge is tantamount to rewriting the Complaint by
way of an opposition to a motion to dismiss. It is not permitted.
Finally, Primary Residential contends that, pursuant to the Supreme
Court's holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal.,
the Court lacks both general and specific personal jurisdiction
over it] for the claims of out of state members of the proposed
national classes. It urges the Court to extend the Supreme Court's
holding in Bristol-Myers to the case. However, Bristol-Myers
concerned the exercise of personal jurisdiction by state courts
over state law claims in a mass tort action. It is unclear what
impact Bristol-Myers has in a case involving the exercise of
personal jurisdiction by a federal court over federal law claims in
a class action. In any event, the Judge need not decide at this
juncture what precisely the contours of a possible class will be,
or if the Court will certify a class at all. Thus, at this time,
the Defendant's arguments on this point are premature.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hollander granted the Motion to
Dismiss as to the RICO claim, and denied it as to the RESPA claim.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 12, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/gmro7X from Leagle.com.
PURPLE INNOVATION: Harper Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Purple Innovation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by Mary Harper
has been voluntarily dismissed.
On February 2, 2018, the company's predecessor, Global Partnership
Acquisition Corp ("GPAC") , consummated the Business Combination
pursuant to the Merger Agreement, by and among GPAC, Merger Sub,
Purple LLC, InnoHold and the Sponsor, which provided for the
Company's acquisition of Purple LLC's business through the merger
of Merger Sub with and into Purple LLC, with Purple LLC being the
survivor in the Business Combination.
In connection with the Closing, the Company changed its name from
"Global Partner Acquisition Corp." to "Purple Innovation, Inc."
On April 2, 2020, Mary Harper, an individual purporting to reside
in Montana, filed a class action complaint against Purple
Innovation Inc., in the United States District Court District of
Montana, Billings Division.
Ms. Harper alleged Purple Innovation, Inc. sent her text message
advertisements to her cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other individuals across the country in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 (TCPA).
The Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds
and provided evidence regarding Ms. Harper's express consent to
receive telephonic communications. Subsequently thereto, on July
27, 2020,
Ms. Harper voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit against Purple
Innovation, LLC.
Purple Innovation, Inc. operates as a mattress, bedding and
cushioning company. The Company produces products meant to aid in
improving sleep quality. Purple sells their products directly to
consumers. The company is based in Lehi, Utah.
QUICKEN LOANS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Hill TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Quicken Loans, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Amanda Hill, et al. v. Quicken
Loans, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00163-FMO-SP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Quicken Loans Inc. sent unsolicited, autodialed SMS or
MMS text messages, en masse, to the Plaintiff's cellular device and
the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the
country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Hill, et al. v. Quicken
Loans, LLC, Case No. 20-55924, 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 October 5, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on November 2, 2020;
-- Appellant Quicken Loans, LLC's opening brief is due on
December 14, 2020;
-- Appellee Amanda Hill's answering brief is due on
January 13, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee AMANDA HILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
David William Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
- and -
Jason Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
Defendant-Appellant QUICKEN LOANS, LLC, FKA Quicken Loans Inc., is
represented by:
Brooks Russell Brown, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 346-4000
E-mail: bbrown@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Laura A. Stoll, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 426-2500
E-mail: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com
RESULTS CO: Harden Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Action Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as TINA HARDEN and CHAMILLE
BAGBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE RESULTS COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01353-JES-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional collective action certification of:
"all persons who worked for Defendant as telephone-
dedicated employees, however titled, and who were
compensated, in part or in full, on an hourly basis
throughout the United States at any time between August
20, 2017 and the present who did not receive the full
amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them and who
did not sign arbitration agreements";
2. authorizing notice of this action to be sent to all
current and former similarly situated employees of the
Defendants, and allowing them the opportunity to opt-in as
party plaintiffs pursuant to Section 16 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act;
3. approving the notice of action and consent to join form
proposed by the Plaintiffs' counsel;
4. directing the Defendant to produce a list of the similarly
situated employees within seven days of the Court's order
granting conditional collective action certification, and
require that such list state each similarly situated
employee's name, address, telephone number, and email
address; and
5. granting such further relief as the Court deems equitable
and just.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Results Companies LLC is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
and is part of the Telephone Call Centers Industry.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 726-3400
- and -
James X. Bormes, Esq.
Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
8 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 650
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 201-0575
RLI CORP: Barrientos-Larios Suit Transferred to E.D. Ca.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hector Ronaldo Barrientos-Larios,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RLI Corp., Defendant, was transferred from California
Central with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07029 to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on September
1, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01749-TLN-EFB.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.
RLI Corp. of Delaware operates as a specialty insurance company.
The Company offers property and casualty coverages and surety
bonds, as well as provides commercial, contract, energy, and
miscellaneous surety products. RLI serves customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael John Hassen, Esq.
Reallaw, APC
1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925) 359-7500
Fax: (925) 557-7690
Email: mjhassen@reallaw.us
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Dale Prough, Esq.
Morison & Prough, LLP
2540 Camino Diablo, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tel: (925) 937-9990
Fax: (916) 937-3272
Email: mdp@morisonprough.com
- and -
Dean C. Burnick, Esq.
Morison & Prough, LLP
2540 Camino Diablo, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tel: (925) 937-9990
Fax: (925) 937-3272
Email: dcb@morisonprough.com
RUHNN HOLDING: IPO Related Class Suits in New York Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ruhn Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class
action suits in New York related to its initial public offering
(IPO).
On September 18, 2019, a putative class action was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, among others.
The complaint alleges that the registration statement on Form F-1
for the company's initial public offering contained false and
misleading statements or omissions in violation of federal
securities laws. The company filed a motion to dismiss on November
20, 2019, which the court granted in part and denied in part on
April 22, 2020.
The company had appealed such decision. In the meantime, the case
is proceeding into fact discovery.
On October 7, 2019 and October 31, 2019, putative class actions
making substantially similar allegations were filed in United
States District Court Eastern District of New York against the
company and certain of its officers and directors. Such class
actions were later consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed
on January 1, 2020.
The company and the lead plaintiff filed a joint motion to stay the
federal action pending resolution of the state action, which was
granted by the court.
Ruhn said, "It is premature at this stage of the litigation to
evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome. We
have retained counsel and will vigorously defend against the
allegations. These class action suits that we are aware of, as well
as any other class action suit we may encounter in the future,
could divert a significant amount of our management’s attention
and other resources from our business and operations and require us
to incur significant expenses to defend the suit, which could harm
our results of operations."
Ruhn Holding Limited a leading internet KOL facilitator in China.
The company connects influential KOLs who engage and impact their
fans on the internet to its vast commercial network to build the
brands of fashion products. The company is based in People's
Republic of China.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Seto Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAHEKILI SETO, JOSE ALEMAN, STEVEN BAXTER, JAYSON BURK, SHAWN
CANNON, AARON DUNSING, MICHAEL EASTIN, RICHARD ESTER, MELISSA
GRIFFITH, ARTHUR HARTY, PAUL HOSKINS, MARIO HOY, JOSE IZAGUIRRE,
LINDA JIMINEZ, JENNIFER KLINE, DARYL LABARTHE, ANDREW LANE, DANIEL
LEVIN, JENNIFER LEWIS, MATTHEW LINDEMANN, RUDOLFO LOVATO, LANCE
MANNER, WILLIAM MITCHELL, JOHN NESBITT, CAREY PEHL, ROSS REMUS,
TERRY RENBERG, MICHAEL REYNOLDS, ANTHONY REYNOSO, MARK RICHMOND,
BRANDON RILEY, EZRA SALOMON, MARCUS SMITH, NICK TAIARIOL, ANDREW
THEODORE, JODY TOWERS, JUSTIN WARD, JASON WHELEN, and NICK ZANOS,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v.
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Case No. 2:20-at-00872 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who are or were members of the San Joaquin County
Sheriff Deputy Sergeant Association (SDSA), allege that the
Defendants failed to include all required forms of compensation in
the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation and
cash out compensatory time off. As a result, the Defendant failed
to compensate them and other similarly situated individuals at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours
worked as required by the FLSA.
County of San Joaquin is a county in the U.S. state of California
with eight communities, namely Mountain House, Tracy, Lathrop,
Manteca, Ripon, Escalon, Stockton, and Lodi, which provide quality
affordable housing along with numerous recreational opportunities
and state-of-the-art K-12 schools and higher education
institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Tashayla D. Billington, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
1912 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 446-4692
Fax: (916) 447-4614
Email: davidm@mastagni.com
tbillington@mastagni.com
SARBANAND FARMS: Settlement in Rosas Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUPE TAPIA, as individuals and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGER BROS., LLC, NIDIA PEREZ, and CSI VISA
PROCESSING S.C., Defendants, Case No. C18-0112-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Joh C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, has entered final approval of the
proposed class action settlement.
The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the class
settlement in December 2019.
The Court now grants final approval of the terms of the Settlement.
The Defendants will pay all sums listed in the settlement agreement
as required by the terms and timelines set forth in that document.
Plaintiffs and class representatives Barbaro Rosas and Guadalupe
Tapia are awarded a payment of $10,000 each for their services as
the class representatives. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees is
also approved and Plaintiffs' counsel is awarded attorney fees and
costs in the amount of $787,500.
The case will not be dismissed until the Defendants have made all
payments and complied with the injunctive relief set forth in the
settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs will file a dismissal with
prejudice against Defendants Munger, Sarbanand, and Nidia Perez
within five business days of receipt of all payments owed under the
settlement agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/hEqsuH from Leagle.com.
SPECIALITY HOME: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Speciality Home Shopping (US Marketing) LLC is facing a class
action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Speciality Home
Shopping (US Marketing) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07121
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020).
Speciality Home Shopping (US) Ltd was founded in 2000. The
company's line of business includes providing various commercial
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Abbassi Labor Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as YAMA ABBASSI, individually, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE,
LLC; ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00023137-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on September 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01745-BAS-BLM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to allow meal and rest
periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failure to timely pay all wages earned in violation of California
Labor Code and for unfair competition in violation of California
Business and Professions Code.
Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, is a retail furniture company based in
Colton, California. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., is an
American home furnishings manufacturer and retailer, headquartered
in Arcadia, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
John D. Hayashi, Esq.
David J. Rashe, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
john.hayashi@morganlewis.com
david.rashe@morganlewis.com
SUPERIOR FARMS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Smith Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN SMITH, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. SUPERIOR FARMS, Case No. 2:20-at-00863 (E.D. Cal.,
Sept. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor
Code, including failure to properly pay minimum and overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff worked as a full time mechanic for the Defendant in
2019 until August 27, 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant manipulated the records of
hours worked by him and other similarly situated employees to
reduce the number of overtime hours each of them earned and to make
it appear that they took timely meal breaks even if they did not.
As a result, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees their lawfully earned minimum and
overtime wages. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide accurate
paystubs, pay all wages at the time of termination for employees,
and pay premiums/statutory-wages for late or missed meal periods,
the Plaintiff asserts.
Superior Farms operates as a meat processing and production
company. The Company provides racks, chops, steaks and kabobs to
restaurants and grocery stores. Superior Farms specializes in
Australian lamb and veal.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Tel: (916) 777-7777
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: jwatson@justice4you.com
TBC RETAIL: Collins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Mechanics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RASHAAD COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TBC RETAIL GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02434 (E.D.
La., Sept. 4, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and other mechanics overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a mechanic at a Tire
Kingdom franchise store located at 2244 Barataria Blvd., in
Marrero, Louisiana, and at 7300 Washington Ave., in New Orleans,
Louisiana, from March 29, 2013, until March 28, 2014.
TBC Retail Group, Inc., is a tire marketer in the automotive
industry doing business in Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rene F. Rocha III, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
400 Poydras St., Suite 1515
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 636-6310
E-mail: RRocha@forthepeople.com
- and –
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW
652 Rutledge Ave.
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
- and –
Matthew Gunter, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600,
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 236-0946
E-mail: MGunter@forthepeople.com
TELECHECK SERVICES: Sixth Cir. Appeal Filed in Beaudry FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Estate of Cheryl Beaudry filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Cheryl Beaudry v. Telecheck
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00842, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Courthouse
News Service reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit revived a class action accusing foreign check-verification
companies of ignoring a numbering change in Tennessee's driver's
license system, making it appear as if "hundreds of thousands, if
not millions" of consumers were first-time check writers.
Cheryl Beaudry filed the class action in 2007 against TeleCheck
Services, TeleCheck International and First Data Corp., alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). U.S. District
Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger dismissed the case, saying Beaudry
failed to allege injury--namely, that she had a check rejected or
transaction canceled because of the error.
But the Cincinnati-based appellate panel said she didn't need to
prove actual injury under the law.
"FCRA's private right of action does not require proof of actual
damages as a prerequisite to the recovery of statutory damages for
willful violations of the Act," Judge Sutton wrote. "The district
court and the defendants suggest that, if we read the law to allow
statutory damages without proof of injury, we would be creating a
strict liability regime," Sutton added. "Not so. The existence of a
willfulness requirement proves that there is nothing 'strict' about
the state of behavior required to violate the law." Judge Sutton
said Ms. Beaudry simply had to show that the defendants used
unreasonable procedures in preparing her credit report. "Under
these circumstances," the court concluded, "[Ms.] Beaudry's claim
should not have been dismissed."
The appellate case is captioned as Cheryl Beaudry v. Telecheck
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-6018, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ESTATE OF CHERYL BEAUDRY, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
Defendants-Appellees TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., TELECHECK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIRST DATA CORPORATION are represented
by:
David Ruben Esquivel, Esq.
BASS, BERRY & SIMS
150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 2800
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-6200
E-mail: desquivel@bassberry.com
TIKTOK INC: Iyer BIPA Suit Moved From California to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled APARNA IYER and BRANDY JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK INC. and
BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-03795, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
September 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05217 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to
obtain informed, written consent from TikTok users before
collecting, storing or using their biometric information; and
failing to institute and maintain publicly-available retention
schedules regarding TikTok users' biometric information.
TikTok Inc. is a company that provides video-sharing social
networking service with its headquarters in Culver City,
California. ByteDance Inc. is an internet technology company with
its headquarters in Palo Alto, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
- and –
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
TIKTOK INC: Johnson BIPA Suit Moved From Calif. to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled A.J., through her guardian, Aaron Johnson,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-03390,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on September 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05214 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to
obtain informed, written consent from TikTok users before
collecting, storing or using their biometric information; and
failing to institute and maintain publicly-available retention
schedules regarding TikTok users' biometric information.
TikTok Inc. is a company that provides video-sharing social
networking service with its headquarters in Culver City,
California. ByteDance Inc. is an internet technology company with
its headquarters in Palo Alto, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
- and –
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
nrahman@cpmlegal.com
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Aug. 18 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin Software" or the "Company") (NYSE: TUFN)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Tufin's April 2019 initial public offering (the
"IPO" or "Offering") and its December 2019 secondary public
offering (the "SPO"). Investors have until September 18, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement featured
false and/or misleading registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with both its IPO and its SPO. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Defendants misled investors with respect to
the Company's North American business, customer relationships and
growth metrics, and the fact that Tufin's business was
deteriorating, and, as a result, Tufin's representations regarding
its sustainable financial prospects were overly optimistic—all of
which was known and concealed by Defendants at the time of the IPO
and SPO.
In April 2019, Tufin completed its initial public offering ("IPO"),
selling 7.7 million shares of common stock priced at $14.00 per
share and raising approximately $107.8 million in capital. Then, on
January 9, 2020, Tufin announced preliminary unaudited revenue and
non-GAAP operating loss estimates for the fourth quarter ended
December 31, 2019. Tufin announced that it expects to report total
revenue in the range of $29.5 million to $30.1 million, compared to
its previous guidance of total revenue in the range of $34.0
million to $38.0 million, and that Tufin now anticipates non-GAAP
operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to $2.6 million,
compared to the Company's previous guidance of non-GAAP operating
profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0 million. Following this
news, Tufin's stock dropped $4.14 per share, or 24.04%, to close at
$13.08 on January 9, 2020.
If you acquired Tufin Software securities, have information, or
would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas
W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]
UNC SYSTEM: Judge to Hear Class Action Over COVID-19 Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Perchick, writing for WTVD, reports that a judge will hear
a class action complaint filed by seventeen faculty members and
other workers at UNC System schools against the UNC System and its
Board of Governors.
The complaint alleges "UNC and its constituent Institutions cannot,
in the face of this pandemic, provide conditions and places of
employment safe or 'free from' recognized hazards associated with
COVID-19 by returning students to these campuses and the
communities in which they are located under the current plans,
where they will live and learn in poorly ventilated dormitories and
class room spaces, be expected (as college-aged students) to fully
comply, both on-campus and off-campus, with the "mandatory" mask
and "social-distancing" rules, when, as of the date of the filing
of this Complaint."
The complaint was filed Monday, August 10, the first day of classes
at UNC and NC State.
A week later, following four clusters of COVID-19 at UNC-Chapel
Hill, Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz announced that undergraduate
instruction would be moved remotely beginning Aug. 19. Gary
Shipman, a Wilmington-based attorney representing the plaintiffs,
said the decision only reinforces their argument.
"It makes it abundantly clear that faculty members, staff, UNC
system employees who are forced to work in these conditions are at
an increased risk of exposure and therefore illness," Shipman
explained.
The complaint requests faculty have the ability to work remotely
should they choose, as well as expanded PPE and protections for
essential workers and those who choose to remain on-campus. In
their filing, the plaintiffs allege their health is being
threatened.
"Anyone who gets sick from exposure in a work environment has no
guarantee of workers' compensation benefits in this state because
COVID-19 is not recognized as an occupational disease," Shipman
said.
"The university has put students and campus workers in an untenable
situation to begin with. We don't think it's possible, especially
with the living situation in the dormitories, it's simply not
possible to have that many people live in that close quarters,
without regularly testing them, and not have massive outbreaks,"
said John Hedlund, a graduate teaching assistant at NC State
University who is a plaintiff on the suit.
Hedlund said in an ideal situation, he'd be in the classroom, but
during the COVID-19 pandemic, remote teaching is more effective.
"We can actually provide a better teaching experience online,
rather than in person where people are wearing masks, students are
not able to communicate with one another, they're not able to work
in small groups," Hedlund said.
In a statement on Aug. 17, UNC System President Peter Hans
emphasized the shift to remote instruction at UNC-Chapel Hill does
not impact other UNC campuses, adding, "Each campus is different,
and I expect situations to evolve differently. In any circumstance,
we will be grounded by reliable public health data and prevailing
local health conditions. I will continue to stay in close contact
with our chancellors and fully support their efforts to fulfill our
core educational mission in safe learning environments."
Shipman said he felt other campuses should follow suit.
"I'm pleased that for the safety of at least those in the
undergraduate departments of UNC-Chapel Hill that someone made the
right decision. I keep waiting for that right decision to be made
at all off the UNC system campuses before campus-by-campus we see
the same results that we're seeing at UNC-Chapel Hill. There's no
reason to believe that the results will be any different," Shipman
said.
While the UNC System does not comment on pending litigation,
affidavits filed in response to the suit provide perspective on
their position. One declaration notes eight of the 17 plaintiffs
listed, including Hedlund, are not required to report to campus,
and adds that there are no employee plaintiffs from Winston Salem
State University, UNC School of the Arts, UNC Greensboro, North
Carolina A&T State University, UNC Pembroke, Fayetteville State
University and Elizabeth City State University. Hedlund encouraged
staff who support the complaint to sign on as plaintiffs.
Other affidavits submitted on behalf of the UNC System also touch
on safety measures the universities have taken to protect people on
campus.
Dr. David Weber, a professor of epidemiology at the Gillings School
of Global Public Health and the Medical Director at UNC Hospitals'
Departments of Hospital Epidemiology (Infection Prevention),
wrote,
"The potential for the indirect transmission of the virus (by
touching surfaces) can be effectively managed by routine hand
hygiene and use of appropriate disinfectants. Accordingly, in my
opinion, the proper use of the measures above (particularly face
coverings and appropriate physical distancing) is sufficient to
protect faculty and staff who return to campus for in-person
instruction and other educational activities. Universities are
uniquely equipped to make sure that these precautions are observed
in the presence of faculty and staff while on campus."
In a separate declaration, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Dr. Mandy Cohen wrote, "We have consulted with leadership at the
UNC System regarding the risks of COVID-19 and the need for
protective measures and will continue to consult with them on a
regular basis. Allowing schools to resume in-person instruction is
a priority and we are opening schools in a manner that is
consistent with our cautious, dimmer-switch approach."
The complaint was originally scheduled to be heard on Aug. 19,
though it was removed from the judge's docket late on Aug. 18. No
new date has been set at this time. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Sec. Devos Appeals Ruling in Vara Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Betsy Devos filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Vara, et al. v. DeVos, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-12175-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.
Betsy Devos is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of Education.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sep. 8,
2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and Motion for Judgment in the case captioned
DIANA VARA, AMANDA WILSON, NOEMY SANTIAGO, KENNYA CABRERA, and
INDRANI MANOO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ELISABETH P. DEVOS, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, and THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 19-12175-LTS (D.
Mass.).
In this putative class action arising under the Higher Education
Act ("HEA"), the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the
Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), the Plaintiffs challenge the
action taken by the Department of Education ("Education") and its
secretary, Elisabeth P. DeVos, concerning thousands of federal
student loans taken out to pay for the cost of attendance at
Everest Institute ("Everest"), a for-profit postsecondary school
that was operated by Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("Corinthian").
The appellate case is captioned as Vara, et al. v. DeVos, et al.,
Case No. 20-1832, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.
Appearance form, Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order
form are due on September 21, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DIANA VARA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; AMANDA WILSON; NOEMY SANTIAGO; INDRANI
MANOO; and KENNYA CABRERA are represented by:
Eileen M. Connor, Esq.
Toby Merrill, Esq.
Victoria F. Roytenberg, Esq.
Michael N. Turi, Esq.
CENTER FOR HEALTH LAW & POLICY INNOVATION
122 Boylston St.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Telephone: (617) 390-2528
Defendant-Appellant BETSY DEVOS, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, and US
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION are represented by:
Annapurna Balakrishna, Esq.
Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq.
US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 748-3111
VARSITY BRANDS: Monopolizes All Star Markets, Radek Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN ANNE RADEK, LAUREN HAYES, and JANINE CHERASARO on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. VARSITY BRANDS,
LLC; VARSITY SPIRIT, LLC; VARSITY SPIRIT FASHION & SUPPLIES, LLC;
and U.S. ALL STAR FEDERATION, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02649-SHL-atc
(W.D. Tenn., Aug. 25, 2020), is brought under the Sherman Act
seeking to recover damages and injunctive relief for the
substantial injuries the Plaintiffs and others have sustained
arising from the Defendants' substantial market power and/or
monopoly power in two relevant markets, the markets for All Star
Competitions and All Star Apparel.
All Star Competitions are events at which several All-Star Teams
compete against each other--above the "recreational" level--in the
choreographed performance of routines comprised of combinations of
stunts, pyramids, dismounts, tosses, and/or tumbling. All Star
Apparel includes clothing, shoes, accessories, and equipment (such
as backpacks, pom poms, and megaphones) purchased for use by
All-Star Cheerleaders at All-Star Competitions and during All-Star
Team practices and training.
Firmly in control of the All Star Competition Market, Varsity
dictates all aspects of it: who can film and distribute video taken
at competitions; what music can be used during routines; who can
judge competitions; who can coach teams at competitions (by
requiring a USASF certification); who can sell apparel at
competitions; which hotels teams can stay at when they travel to
competitions; which competitions can offer bids to the crowning
year-end championships; and which competition producers can use the
U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. ("USASF")-sanctioned and copyrighted
scorebook, according to the complaint. The All Star Apparel Market,
on the other hand, is where Varsity pushes exclusionary contracts
and anticompetitive rebate programs for apparel on gyms in order to
funnel market share its own way; and, Varsity prevents would-be All
Star Apparel competitors from selling their products at 90% of the
All Star Competitions, a key marketing channel.
According to the complaint, Varsity has, separately and in
combination with USASF, acquired, enhanced, and maintained monopoly
power in the Relevant Markets in the United States through an
unlawful scheme over the past 15 years. During the Class Period,
Varsity collectively controlled approximately 90% of the All Star
Competition Market and 80% of the All Star Apparel Market. Through
their unlawful conduct, Varsity and USASF, acting together and
independently, have substantially foreclosed competition in both
Relevant Markets and thereby maintained and enhanced its monopoly
power. In doing so, their Exclusionary Scheme has led to reduced
output, supracompetitive prices, and reduced choice in both
Relevant Markets.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants' efforts to
restrain competition in the market for All Star Competitions and
All Star Apparel have substantially affected interstate commerce.
During the Class Period, the Defendants organized, promoted, and
managed All Star Competitions and manufactured, distributed, and
sold All Star Apparel in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of
commerce across state lines and throughout the United States. The
Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased those goods and
services from across state lines as well. Varsity also employs two
types of agreements with All Star Gyms, the "Network Agreement" and
the "Family Plan," to maintain its dominance in the All Star
Competition Market and to acquire, enhance, and maintain monopoly
power in the All Star Apparel Market.
Varsity Brands, LLC, formerly known as Varsity Brands, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation that produces sports apparel and equipment
with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.
Varsity Spirit, LLC, formerly known as Varsity Spirit Corp., is a
corporation that sells cheerleading, dance team and band apparel,
trains cheerleaders and dancers at educational camps and hosts
cheerleading competitions, with its principal place of business in
Memphis, Tennessee.
Varsity Spirit Fashion & Supplies, LLC, formerly known as Varsity
Spirit Fashion & Supplies Inc., is a manufacturer and supplier of
cheerleading apparel and accessories with its principal place of
business in Memphis, Tennessee.
The U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. is the governing body for
All-Star cheerleading and dance in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathan A. Bicks, Esq.
Frank B. Thacher III, Esq.
BURCH, PORTER, & JOHNSON, PLLC 130
North Court Ave.
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 524-5000
E-mail: nbicks@bpjlaw.com
fthacher@bpjlaw.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Veronica Bosco, Esq.
Ethan H. Kaminsky, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
kgarvey@labaton.com
vbosco@labaton.com
ekaminsky@labaton.com
- and -
Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr., Esq.
Charles Barrett, Esq.
Aubrey B. Harwell III, Esq.
NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-1713
E-mail: aharwell@nealharwell.com
cbarrett@nealharwell.com
tharwell@nealharwell.com
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a motion for lead
plaintiff in a securities class action that has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of
Velocity Financial. ("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE:VEL) issued
in connection with Velocity's January 2020 IPO (the "Offering
Materials"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.
If you purchased Velocity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Velocity Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that a
significantly higher proportion of its loan portfolio had become
non-performing loans; and (2) any information regarding the onset
of the coronavirus, including whether the coronavirus was adversely
impacting the real estate market or the Company's business,
operations or financial condition.
On May 13, 2020 Velocity issued a release and investor presentation
and held an earnings call providing the Company's financial and
operational results for the first quarter of 2020. The Company
stated that its net income decreased 50% sequentially during the
quarter to just $2.6 million. The Company also confirmed that the
suspension of loan origination would continue for an indeterminate
amount of time, effectively halting all potential growth in the
Company's loan portfolio. In addition, the Company stated that its
proportion of non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million,
nearly double the unpaid principal amount year over year, and
constituted 8.17% of the Company's total portfolio, 252 basis
points over the prior year. Velocity's portfolio yield also fell 32
basis points sequentially to 8.57% due in substantial part to the
rising number of non-performing loans.
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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Velocity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/velocityfinancial-vel-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-287/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Memorandum of Understanding Inked in "Hartmann"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verb Technology Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company has executed a binding
Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit entitled, SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB
TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case
Number 2:19-CV-05896.
On July 9, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Central District of California,
styled SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's Common Stock between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, and
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the January 3, 2018,
announcement by the Company of its agreement with Oracle America,
Inc.
The complaint seeks unspecified costs and damages.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.
On May 15, 2020, the company executed a binding Memorandum of
Understanding with the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
to settle that action and release the claims asserted therein.
The terms of the settlement are confidential pending submission to
the court, and subject to several contingencies, including but not
limited to court approval.
Verb Technology said, "We believe we have established an
appropriate reserve to account for the settlement."
Verb Technology Company, Inc. provides cloud-based business
software products under the Tagg brand name. The company was
formerly known as nFusz, Inc. and changed its name to Verb
Technology Company, Inc. in February 2019. Verb Technology Company,
Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Los Angeles,
California.
VITA-MIX CORP: Baker & Hostetler Atty. Discusses Ruling in Linneman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that attorney
fee awards are a major driver of class action litigation -- both in
the employment and other contexts. How they are awarded, and what
is "reasonable" has been an ongoing source of contention in many
cases. A recent opinion from the Sixth Circuit provides some
guidance and also places limits on methodology used by some courts
to support generous, even lavish, fee awards.
The decision in Linneman v. Vita-Mix Corp., Case Nos. 19-3993/4249
(6th Cir., Aug. 12, 2020), related to the settlement of a class
action involving the high-end Vita-Mix blenders used commercially
and by consumers. The plaintiffs, who owned the mixers, claimed
that a seal used in the blenders was defective and would wear away
with use. The parties settled the case under a two-part structure:
Consumers could get either a $70 gift card or a replacement
assembly with a revised seal; commercial users would get only the
assembly. As the parties were unable to agree to a fee amount, the
settlement provided that class counsel would receive a fee to be
determined by the district court. As explained below, after two
years of litigation, and using a lodestar calculation, the district
court awarded $3.9 million in fees ($2.2 million plus a 75%
premium), and the defendant appealed.
Much of the Court of Appeals' decision related to the application
of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), as it was largely
undisputed that the terms of the agreement made the deal a coupon
settlement. The importance to this blog is that the court found
that it was appropriate for the trial court to use a lodestar
calculation rather than a percentage of the settlement.
With respect to the lodestar calculation, the court made a number
of important pronouncements, ruling for the plaintiffs in some
instances and for the defendant in others. Among them:
In a lodestar calculation, the result (reasonable hours times a
reasonable rate) is presumed to be the correct reasonable rate. The
court can apply a multiplier (no surprise there), but only in "rare
and exceptional" circumstances.
A fee award can include the time spent pursuing fees (again, no
surprise), but in this case, the defendant had made a reasonable
Rule 68 offer of judgment on the amount ($3.1 million), calling
into serious question why the fee issue needed to be litigated for
another two years.
The rates used must be appropriate in the local community, not
nationwide. Thus, the plaintiffs were limited to the relatively
lower rates charged in southern Ohio, where the case was pending,
and not higher rates charged in other or "national" markets.
The court ultimately remanded the case for numerous reasons and for
further determination of the issues noted above, as well as to
determine whether the settlement had actually accomplished much for
the class members given the steps the defendant had taken prior to
the litigation to correct the alleged defect.
The Linneman case is a good example of what can happen when a court
actually looks at the amount of work done, the results obtained for
the class and whether a fee enhancement is actually in order.
The bottom line: Courts that look closely at what goes into
lodestar fee awards in class actions may award less than the
plaintiffs expect. [GN]
VOX MEDIA: Settles SB Nation Class Action for $4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Bucholtz, writing for Awful Announcing, reports that the
years-long story of class-action litigation against Vox Media over
classifying SB Nation team site managers and contributors as
contractors rather than employees has now led to a settlement. This
started in September 2017 when Cheryl Bradley (a site manager at SB
Nation Colorado Avalanche blog Mile High Hockey between 2013 and
2015), filed a lawsuit both "individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated," a lawsuit that came only weeks after
Laura Wagner's "How SB Nation Profits Off An Army Of Exploited
Workers" piece at Deadspin.
Other lawsuits followed and were eventually joined into a class
action, and lawyers for the plaintiffs reached out to other SB
Nation site managers to join the case in April 2019. The three
combined lawsuits (Bradley, Spruill, and Reddington) have now been
settled for $4 million, with an estimated $1.5 million of that
going to attorneys' fees and the remainder divided amongst
plaintiffs "based on weeks worked and a point-system, which is tied
to whether the person was a Site Manager or a Contributor and
whether the class member worked in California, New Jersey or
elsewhere in the United States."
The more than 450 plaintiffs involved are expected to see average
awards ranging from $4,940.88 (in the Bradley case) to $7,360.79
(in the Reddington case) to $9,451.49 (in the Spruill case). Here's
the key settlement document, the "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' OMNIBUS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT," which was filed in the U.S. district
court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 17:
There are three different classes involved here, with one going off
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (Bradley), one off California
legislation (Spruill), and one off New Jersey legislation
(Reddington). Here's how those classes are defined:
All individuals who filed valid notices of consent to join the
Bradley Action ("Opt-In Plaintiffs")—except for those individuals
who later withdrew from this Action (the "FLSA Settlement Class")
All current and former paid contributors to Vox Media, who were
classified as independent contractors and performed work in
California for any SB Nation team site from September 21, 2014
through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement by the
Court or August 5, 2020, whichever is earlier (the
"California Settlement Class");
All current and former paid contributors to Vox Media, who were
classified as independent contractors and performed work in New
Jersey for any SB Nation team site from March 31, 2014 through the
date of preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court or
August 5, 2020, whichever is earlier (the "New Jersey
Settlement Class" and collectively with the California Settlement
Class, "Rule 23 Settlement Classes").
That document also describes how this settlement compares to the
total amount the plaintiffs claimed:
In total, Plaintiffs estimate that Defendants' total exposure would
be, on the high end, approximately $14,317,711, or, more
realistically, taking into consideration the litigation risks,
Defendant's defenses, and room for the courts' discretion to
decrease civil penalties under PAGA, approximately $7,733,261. The
total settlement of $4,000,000 represents about 28% of the maximum
exposure and about 52% of the realistic damages for the three
cases.
So this settlement (which came after a mediation meeting in June)
is for quite a bit less than the maximum exposure, but about half
of what's estimated as "realistic damages." And that seems to make
some sense for both sides.
The settlement means that the plaintiffs involved get some money.
And while it's not a lot for each individual person, a few thousand
dollars isn't nothing, especially given the state of the sports
media world and the larger economy right now. And while there might
have been more if they'd pursued this further, they also would have
lost more to legal fees, and they might not have gotten anything.
Meanwhile, Vox has to pay out a fair bit, but it's nowhere near as
much as it could have been if the plaintiffs had been awarded more
of what they were asking for. And they also don't have to spend
further time or legal fees on this. And as per a statement Vox PR's
Meredith Webster gave to Wagner at Vice, this includes no admission
of liability:
"We have not departed from the company's previous position as we
have always believed that we treat our content creators fairly.
With regard to the settlement, Vox Media and the plaintiffs have
reached a mutual settlement agreement covering the related class
action lawsuits brought on behalf of SB Nation site managers and
contributors. Settling all three lawsuits together and ending the
litigation was the desired outcome for all parties. Ultimately, we
weighed the costs of continued litigation and made a business
decision that this settlement amount was reasonable and would
enable the company to put these cases behind it and move on. There
was no admission of liability. We are grateful for the many
contributions of our content creators."
So it's not necessarily the ideal outcome for either side, but it's
one where there's some logic to a settlement. But it will be
interesting to see how this affects Vox going forward. They already
pulled out of relationships with California-based contractors in
December (and angered a lot of their long-time writers there in the
process), citing the state's then-incoming AB5 law, and they made
some changes to their operation after these lawsuits, including
reducing some specific demands for team site managers. They've also
already slashed their sports side hard in recent months with rounds
of furloughs and buyouts and layoffs.
And while Vox Media overall certainly has money (it was valued at
$750 million last September, a drop from $1.1 billion in 2015),
it's facing plenty of challenges with the ongoing pandemic, and $4
million is not a nothing cost. We'll see where they go from here
and if there are other knock-on effects from this litigation. But
it's certainly notable to see this long-running case settled. [GN]
WALMART INC: McKnight-Nero Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CHEKETA MCKNIGHT-NERO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01541-APM (D. Colo), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order granting certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) of a class comprised of:
"all people identified as "immunocompromised" and current
consumers of Defendant Walmart."
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. The company
was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31,
1969.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ikechukwu Emejuru, Esq.
EMEJURU LAW L.L.C.
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1100
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (240) 638-2786
Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923
E-mail: iemejuru@emejurulaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John M. Majoras, Esq.
Yaakov M. Roth, Esq.
William G. Laxton Jr., Esq.
Debra R. Belott, Esq.
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 879-3939
E-mail: jmmajoras@jonesday.com
yroth@jonesday.com
wglaxton@jonesday.com
dbelott@jonesday.com
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Interchange Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the appeal made by the settlement objector
merchants in the the Interchange Litigation is pending.
ompany's allocated responsibility for the additional funding is
approximately $94.5 million. The court granted final approval of
the settlement on December 13, 2019, which was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by settlement
objector merchants.
Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding
the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions. Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and
bank holding companies are also named as defendants in these
actions.
These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The amended and
consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive.
Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.
On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.
The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the
consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately
$6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants
opting out of the settlement. The class settlement also provided
for the distribution to class merchants of 10 basis points of
default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period
of eight consecutive months.
The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out
of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.
On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement
agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for further proceedings.
On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the
United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the
settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the
petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the district
court appointed lead class counsel for a damages class and an
equitable relief class.
The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately
$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900
million in additional funding.
The Company's allocated responsibility for the additional funding
is approximately $94.5 million. The court granted final approval of
the settlement on December 13, 2019, which was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by settlement
objector merchants.
Several of the opt-out and direct action litigations have been
settled while others remain pending. Discovery is proceeding in the
opt-out litigations and the equitable relief class case.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WESTSIDE SCHOOL: Faces Class Action for Failing to Refund Deposits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed against a Vancouver private
school for allegedly failing to refund deposits made by parents to
ensure the enrolment of their children.
Robert French, the representative plaintiff, says in the suit that
his son was a student at Westside school and that he paid a $3,000
deposit in January to ensure his child's enrolment for the
September 2020 semester.
He says that unknown to the parents at the time, the school was
struggling financially but that those problems became more evident
in the spring when it became apparent that payment of teachers was
being delayed, rent on buildings was in arrears and debts had not
been paid.
The school was also the subject of several other lawsuits launched
by those claiming to be owed money from the school for funds
allegedly invested or loaned and not returned.
The suit says the school brought in new management to deal with the
problems and effectively replaced the board members of the Westside
Preparatory Society, which managed and controlled the school.
"However, it was readily apparent that the future of the school was
in jeopardy, that there were no guarantees the school would open in
September, and even if it were, in what state it would be in."
Many parents have decided to enrol their kids elsewhere and have
tried to get a return of their deposits but those requests have
either been ignored, deflected or refused, says the lawsuit.
The school, which operates in Downtown Vancouver, in January had an
enrolment of about 300 kids from kindergarten to Grade 12,
according to the writ.
The decision by many parents to withdraw their children was an
"extreme hardship" to them, adds the lawsuit.
"This occurred during the COVID pandemic and parents/guardians were
left scrambling to find placements for their children at other
institutions during a time when business was anything but usual,"
it says.
The lawsuit alleges that the society was in a position of trust
with the parents and had breached that trust and is seeking a court
order certifying the case as a class-action proceeding.
It is also seeking damages representing the total of the deposits
paid for those students who withdrew as well as aggravated
damages.
No response has been filed to the lawsuit and the allegations have
not been tested in court. The suit has not yet been served upon the
society. As such, the school is not in a position to provide a
comment at this time, the society said.
In an email, the Education Ministry said it sympathizes with
students, their families and members of the school's community who
faced uncertainty about school operations during the last several
months of the school year.
"The ministry has contacted the school, parent representatives and
the school authority to understand their concerns and next steps.
We understand that the Westside school intends to open this fall.
The ministry is in frequent contact with the school and is
continuing to closely monitor the situation." [GN]
WHOLE FOODS: Berkley Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JOSE BERKLEY and JAMES CAPERS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET
GROUP INC., Case No. 154342/2020, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on September
4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07278 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation
of the New York Labor Law.
Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., is an American multinational
supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Leni D. Battaglia, Esq.
Daniel A. Kadish, Esq.
Liliya P. Kramer, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Telephone: (212) 309-6000
Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
E-mail: Leni.battaglia@morganlewis.com
Daniel.kadish@morganlewis.com
Liliya.kramer@morganlewis.com
WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Files Amended Securities Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019 was appointed Lead Counsel in the
securities class action brought on behalf of investors in Wirecard
American Depository Shares (ADS) and F-shares before Hon. Fernando
M. Olguin, DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK
(C.D. Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard ADS purchased in the
United States with tickers WCAGY or WRCDF, that it has filed an
amended securities fraud complaint expanding the Class Period and
adding Wulf Matthias, former Chairman of Wirecard's Supervisory
Board, and auditor Ernst & Young GmbH
Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft ("E&Y") as additional Defendants.
The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of investors, other
than Defendants, who purchased shares of WCAGY and WRCDF between
August 17, 2015 and June 26, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Expanded Class Period"). The amendments include the recent events,
including ex-Wirecard CEO Markus Braun's reported arrest and the
widening criminal probes amid the disclosed $2.1 billion missing
from the company's balance sheet.
Hagens Berman urges investors in Wirecard securities traded in the
United States to contact the firm:
WCAGY@hbsslaw.com
WRCDF@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
The pending securities fraud case concerns Defendants' deliberate
use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly affirmed the
effectiveness of Wirecard's internal controls and processes for
financial reporting. In truth, Defendants were fabricating
financial results by, among other things, inflating cash balances
in trust accounts.
The truth emerged through a series of exposé articles published by
the Financial Times beginning on Jan. 30, 2019, revealing an
elaborate accounting fraud orchestrated at the highest levels of
Wirecard.
On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor
Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel.
On June 18, 2020, Wirecard disclosed that its external auditor was
unable to confirm the existence of $2.1 billion in cash balances on
trust accounts. Moreover, Wirecard warned that a failure to provide
certified annual and consolidated financial statements by June 19,
2020 would allow appx. $2 billion worth of loans to be terminated.
The scandal intensified when it was reported Markus Braun, the CEO
who left the company on June 19, was arrested in Germany, accused
of inflating the company's balance sheet, Wirecard filed for
insolvency, and German shareholders association SdK filed a
criminal complaint against E&Y auditors. Altogether, this news has
sent the price of Wirecard securities traded in the United States
crashing by over 90%.
On Aug. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended class
action complaint to include revelations about the full extent of
the alleged accounting fraud.
"Hagens Berman kept the pressure on Wirecard to come clean with
this lawsuit since early 2019. While the defendants will fight
application of the U.S securities laws and the protection they
provide investors who trade on the U.S. markets, we expect to
prevail," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.
For more information about the case visit:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/WRCDF
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
www.hbsslaw.com. [GN]
WORLD WRESTLING: Shareholders File Numerous Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
CGLytics, in an article for Mondaq, reports that World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) is currently facing lawsuits filed by
shareholders alleging that the company intentionally made
misleading statements to investors and omitted material information
causing shareholders to buy the company's Class A common stock at
inflated prices. This article examines the corporate governance
practices of WWE in the wake of its crisis and how governance risks
could have been reduced.
A Revealing Lawsuit
Named in the WWE lawsuit are Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Vincent K. McMahon, Chief Brand Officer, Stephanie McMahon
(McMahon's daughter), and former wrestler and current Executive
Vice President of Global Talent Strategy and Development, Paul
"Triple H" Levesque (Ms. McMahon's husband).
Shareholders allege that WWE's executives intentionally misled
investors about the success to secure media rights deals in the
MENA region, and that the company failed to disclose the true
reasons behind declining merchandise sales and subscriptions to its
streaming service, WWE Network.
Unlike typical incidents that Vince McMahon and WWE have to deal
with, this lawsuit is not part of an on-camera storyline and raises
serious concerns about the company's financial condition and
governance practices. Additionally, this lawsuit raises an
interesting opportunity to explore the inner workings of the
leading company in an industry that has traditionally operated as a
closed society.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated
Corporate governance has its own definition within WWE. WWE,
characterized by many as a "one-man operation", has been centered
around its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Vince McMahon since
McMahon took over the promotion (then known as the World-Wide
Wrestling Federation) from his father, promoter Vincent J. McMahon,
in 1982. True, the company has an independent board of directors,
much the same as any other publicly-traded company, yet those who
have worked under McMahon have never shown any hesitancy in
claiming that Vince McMahon runs the show, both literally and
figuratively. For context, longtime wrestling manager, promoter,
and commentator Jim Cornette recently commented in an interview
with Vice News that "to this day, they run the lunch schedule by
Vince McMahon."
Whether it be a company-wide restructuring or designing the minute
details of a particular wrestler's "gimmick"(on-screen character),
anecdotal stories of McMahon's micromanagement of the WWE number in
the dozens and illustrate the depth of his involvement at nearly
every level of the company's operations. While this approach may
have led to the WWE becoming the undisputed champion of the
wrestling industry, McMahon's dominance over the company may
present a problem as it enters its third decade on the stock
market.
An analysis using the CGLytics Board Effectiveness software tools
illustrates how WWE's board lacks financial expertise and has no
governance expertise among its members. Considering the nature of
the class-action lawsuits filed against the company, the lack of
financial and governance expertise presents both a significant
problem and also a valuable opportunity for the company to
strengthen its board in these fields. What remains to be seen,
however, is if and/or how the famously iron-fisted McMahon will
proceed as the lawsuits work their way through the legal system.
Mr. McMahon
WWE's entry into the stock market revolutionized the professional
wrestling industry. Never had a "booker" become the Chairman and
CEO of a publicly traded company, much less a wrestling promotion
into the stock market. Due to Vince McMahon's reputation for never
"breaking kayfabe", countless current and former personalities in
the industry have questioned where the line ends between Vince
McMahon and his "Heel" on-screen character, the
cartoonishly-evil-billionaire-boss, Mr. McMahon.
WWE Goes Public
Interestingly, it was not the wrestling itself that allowed the WWE
to go public in 1999. That particular part of WWE's success can be
traced back to the 1997 King of the Ring pay-per-view when "Stone
Cold" Steve Austin cut a promo on Jake "The Snake" Roberts after
winning their match and uttered the now immortal (and quite
lucrative) line "Austin 3:16 says I just whooped your [rear end]."
What followed was a virtual avalanche of sales of "Austin 3:16"
emblazoned merchandise that dwarfed the profits previously drawn by
1980's industry icon and former WWE staple, Hulk Hogan, and led to
a dramatic shift in WWE's business strategy. In 1999 alone, WWE
reported over $400 million in revenues from its various merchandise
lines. By contrast, WWE's live events, TV shows, and pay-per-view
specials combined had drawn $170 million in revenue that same
year.
No longer purely a wrestling promotion, WWE transformed its entire
business around the merchandise sales of its top stars. From
Dwyane "The Rock" Johnson to John Cena to Phil "CM Punk" Brooks,
WWE has raked in hundreds of millions in profits off the sales of
t-shirts, hats, and an endless list of wrestler-themed
accessories.
McMahon is noted to have pressured Steve Austin to remain with the
company after the latter suffered a career-shortening spinal injury
in 1997 due to the weight that his name carried and the
unprecedented success of his merchandise line. Austin, after all,
would be an integral part of McMahon's initial pitch to investors.
Indeed, his name can be found alongside those of The Rock, The
Undertaker, and several other prominent wrestlers in the company's
S-1 registration statement.
Flash forward twenty years and WWE has again adjusted its business
model to not only include merchandise lines, but also other forms
of entertainment, including WWE-produced feature-films and reality
tv shows starring WWE talent. The company's most recent success
appears to be linked to the 2014 launch of the WWE Network, an
online streaming service and digital TV network that offers access
to WWE live events, TV shows, WWE-produced films and documentaries,
and the company's expansive digital library (known to be the
world's largest collection of professional wrestling video
content).
Shareholders "Take the Book"
These class action lawsuits present a new dilemma for the WWE.
Historically, it has taken relatively earth-shattering events to
cause WWE to respond to shareholders in a meaningful and lasting
manner. The first prominent event to occur after WWE's IPO was the
tragic and sudden death of wrestler Eddie Guerrero in 2005.
Guerrero died of heart failure that was believed to have been a
result of previous steroid abuse. The circumstances surrounding
Guerrero's death led WWE to reimplement its current strict drug
testing policy that had previously been suspended in 1996.
The second and more tragic event that caused a dramatic change
within WWE was the Chris Benoit double murder-suicide in 2006.
Benoit's actions had reverberations across the entire wrestling
industry and caused WWE to relaunch its programming under a new
"TV-PG" rating in a very public attempt to decrease the violence
shown on WWE shows. The entire tone of WWE programming shifted to
a more "family-friendly" atmosphere, placing an emphasis on more
comedic storylines and wrestler gimmicks, and heavily restricting
the wrestling portions of its shows.
For example, one of the more controversial restrictions (among
wrestlers and large swaths of fans) was the banning of the
decades-old practice of "blading". In order to bleed for dramatic
effect during a match without actually being hit over the head with
a blunt object, wrestlers would use small, hidden razor blades to
make shallow cuts in their foreheads that bled profusely but rarely
caused actual injuries. Under WWE's PG policy, blood has almost
vanished entirely from its programming, apart from accidents that
draw blood (wrestlers term this bleeding "the hard way"). In these
instances, WWE TV shows will only broadcast those portions of the
show in black-and-white to deemphasize the appearance of blood.
Former wrestler and Guardians of the Galaxy actor, Dave Batista,
was fined $100,000 by the company after he "bladed" during a match
in 2008. The size of the fine was to no-doubt send a message to
both the public and shareholders that WWE has taken its new turn
seriously.
The Impact on Share Prices
The lawsuits appear to have already begun to cause damage to WWE's
share prices. Forbes reported a 13% drop in the company's share
price on April 25th, 2019, after the initial news of WWE's troubles
in the MENA region began to leak. This trend continued as the
company underperformed in Q3 of 2019, leading a number of investors
to openly question whether WWE leadership was being truthful about
the nature of its relationships in the MENA region, most
importantly with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The final straw
appears to have come in a January 2020 disclosure when the company
again underperformed due primarily to its failure to secure a
favorable deal with Saudi Arabia and ceased to include the deal in
financial forecasts. By February 6th, 2020, WWE stock closed at
USD 40.24, representing a 60% decline in share price from its
previous year's high of USD 100. WWE filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuits in late June and the case is still winding its way through
the legal system, however, it is safe to say that the company faces
a new challenge the likes of which it has yet to encounter.
To navigate through difficult times, such as a lawsuit, it is of
utmost importance for a company to show governance oversight and
understand how their company is perceived by shareholders,
investors, proxy advisors and the media. Deficiencies in board
expertise such as finance, technology and governance can be clearly
seen in the CGLytics platform and reveal governance risks to
stakeholders and activist investors. Software tools, such as
CGLytics, highlight governance red flags allow companies such as
WWE to gain control through proactive insights and make smart
data-based decisions. [GN]
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
[*] China Gov't-backed Class Actions Take Aim at Corporate Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Shen and Alun John, writing for Reuters, report that China
wants its army of mom-and-pop investors to take corporate
fraudsters to task with landmark class action lawsuits, but heavy
government involvement means they are not likely to be as common as
in other legal systems, lawyers and investors said.
The legal framework, which follows a series of scandals and
official vows to crack down on corporate malfeasance, is the latest
move to deepen and improve capital markets in China, where 80% of
trading is conducted by retail investors.
Under the new class-action mechanism, which began on July 31, a
Chinese government-affiliated body, the China Securities Investor
Service Centre (CSISC), will sue on behalf of all individual
investors in a company.
The CSISC said it would initially select "typical, major cases with
wicked social impact and exemplary significance". Investors and
lawyers say that could result in other cases falling by the
wayside.
"I think it's going to be complicated . . . because if a company is
very strongly backed, for example, by the local government, do you
dare bring a class-action suit against it?" said Marcia Ellis, Hong
Kong-based Partner at Morrison & Foerster.
Although corporate fraud is not uncommon in China, retail investors
have historically had little chance to make their voices heard.
Small investors often likened legal action to ants fighting
elephants.
Gao Jianlu, a retail investor in southwest China, said the new
class-action framework made it cheaper and easier to sue listed
companies.
"Bosses of listed companies will lose their shirts and never rise
again," Gao wrote in his blog on the trading community site
Xueqiu.com.
Accounting fraud at firms including Kangmei Pharmaceutical and
Kangde Xin Composite Material Group risk damaging investors' trust
in China's financial markets, Yi Huiman, China's top securities
regulator, said in May.
Individual investors have sued these companies, and others, under
the existing investor-protection rules, but individual cases
typically fail to catch courts' attention, while compensation is
often negligible, even for major fraud.
GOVERNMENT CONTROL
China's stock market plays an increasingly important role in
financing cash-starved companies in a slowing economy and amid
rising tensions with the United States.
Investors fear that China's shift toward a disclosure-based initial
public offering of shares system, in which companies must meet
fewer thresholds to list, could result in more fraudulent
companies.
But even with the new framework, class-action lawsuits "won't be
used as extensively in China as they are in the U.S.," activist
investor Xu Caiyuan said.
Under the new litigation process, either the courts or a regulator
must find that a company has broken the rules, or the company must
admit wrongdoing, before a class-action lawsuit can be launched.
In addition, class-action suits launched by individuals, not the
CSISC, can only include investors who opt in, reducing the number
of plaintiffs and the size of the claim.
Yang Seng, a lawyer who has collected claims on 150 cases of
corporate fraud during the past two years, said this would sideline
lawyers who had been the most active under the previous system.
"I don't think we'll see a large wave of class-action lawsuits," he
said. [GN]
[*] Class Actions Over Hemp-Derived CBD Products Flourishing
------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Apfel, Nilda M. Isidro, Brendan Radke, Emily Notini and
Zoe Bellars, writing for Cannabis Industry Journal, report that
consumer demand for products containing cannabidiol (CBD) is on the
rise across the country, with industry experts estimating that the
market for CBD products will reach $20 billion by 2024. This boom
in consumer demand has outpaced the regulatory framework
surrounding these products. While the 2018 Farm Bill decriminalized
hemp, it left much up to individual states and preserved the FDA's
jurisdiction over dietary supplements, foods and cosmetics. The FDA
has not yet issued any specific rulemaking for CBD products.
Against this background, it is not surprising that consumer class
actions regarding hemp-derived CBD products are flourishing. Over
the past year alone, the plaintiffs' bar has filed approximately
twenty putative class action lawsuits against manufacturers of
hemp-derived CBD products. The cases are primarily in federal court
in California and Florida, with additional cases in Illinois and
Massachusetts. Plaintiffs challenge the marketing and advertising
of a variety of CBD products, including oils, gummies, capsules,
creams, pet products and more.
The cases so far follow a familiar pattern seen in prior consumer
class actions, especially in the food and beverage industry. Read
on to learn what plaintiffs have claimed in the CBD lawsuits, how
companies are defending their products, and how best to position
your hemp-derived CBD products in light of lessons learned from
past litigation.
What These Lawsuits Are Claiming, and How Companies Are Defending
Their Products
In most of the recent CBD lawsuits, plaintiffs claim either that:
1) product labels over- or understate the amount of CBD in the
products; and/or 2) the sale of CBD products is inherently
misleading to consumers because the products are purportedly
illegal under federal law. Regardless of which theory underlies the
claims, plaintiffs typically frame their claims as consumer fraud,
false advertising, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and/or
deceptive trade practices.
In most cases, defendants have filed motions to dismiss seeking to
have the cases thrown out. In these motions, defendants argue that
plaintiffs' claims are "preempted" by the Federal Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and that only the federal government can
enforce the FDCA. Some defendants have additionally argued that if
the court is not prepared to dismiss the claims as preempted, the
doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" applies. This means that the
issues raised regarding CBD are for the FDA to decide, and the
cases should be stayed until the FDA finalizes and issues rules on
products containing hemp-derived CBD. Many defendants have also
advanced dismissal arguments for lack of standing, claiming that
the individuals bringing the lawsuits are trying to sue for conduct
that never harmed them personally (e.g., because they never
purchased a particular product), or will not harm them in the
future (e.g., because plaintiffs have stated they will not buy the
product again). The standing arguments often apply to particular
claims or products within the lawsuit, rather than to the lawsuit
as a whole.
Current Status of the Cases
Of the approximately twenty consumer class actions filed over the
last year, about half remain pending:
-- Five have been stayed pursuant to motions filed by
defendants;
-- Two have motions to dismiss pending;
-- One has a pending motion to vacate a default judgment against
defendants;
-- One was filed earlier in August, and defendant's deadline to
respond has not yet elapsed.
To date, none of the cases (currently pending or otherwise) has
proceeded to discovery, and no class has yet been certified. That
means that no court has yet determined that these cases are
appropriate to bring as class action lawsuits, rather than as
separate claims on behalf of each individual member of the putative
class. This is significant, because plaintiffs' ability to achieve
class certification will likely influence whether these CBD
lawsuits will continue to be filed. Consumer fraud cases like these
typically do not claim any physical injury, and the monetary
damages per individual plaintiff are relatively low. As such, the
cases often are not worth pursuing if they cannot proceed as class
actions.
Of the cases that are no longer pending, all but two were
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs. While the motivation behind
these dismissals is not always announced, approximately half of the
voluntary dismissals came after defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, but before the court had ruled on it. One Florida case was
mediated and settled after the court denied defendant's motion to
dismiss.1 A California court spontaneously dismissed one matter
(without the defendant having filed any motion) due to a procedural
defect in the complaint, which plaintiffs failed to correct by the
court-imposed deadline.2
Early Outcomes on Motions to Dismiss
Of the thirteen motions to dismiss filed to date, only five have
been decided. So far:
No court has dismissed a case based on federal preemption grounds.
Courts have either deferred ruling on preemption, or denied it
without prejudice to re-raising it at a later time.
Four courts have stayed cases based on primary jurisdiction.3
Only one court has denied the primary jurisdiction argument.4
Standing arguments have been successful in three cases,5 and
deferred or denied without prejudice to later re-raising in the
other two cases.6 However, the standing arguments applied only to
certain products/claims, and were not dispositive of all claims in
any case.
These rulings show a clear trend towards staying the cases pursuant
to primary jurisdiction. In granting these stays, courts have noted
that regulatory oversight of CBD ingestible products, including
labeling, is currently the subject of FDA rulemaking, and that FDA
is "under considerable pressure from Congress" to expedite the
publication of regulations and guidance.7
Plaintiffs may be recognizing the trend towards primary
jurisdiction as well, since there is now at least one case where
plaintiffs agreed to a stay after defendant filed a motion to
dismiss asserting, among other things, primary jurisdiction.8 But
some plaintiffs are still resisting. For example, in the first case
to have been stayed plaintiffs have since filed a motion to lift
the stay. The motion—which was filed after the case was
reassigned to a different judge—argues that primary jurisdiction
does not apply, and that the FDA's recent report to Congress
suggests no CBD-specific rulemaking is forthcoming.9 The motion is
pending.
Lessons Learned From Food Industry Consumer Class Actions
The motions to dismiss that have been filed to date in CBD-related
class actions follow a tried and true playbook that has been
developed by defense counsel in other food and beverage industry
class actions. For example, the primary jurisdiction arguments that
have been gaining traction in the CBD consumer class actions are
very similar to primary jurisdiction arguments that were successful
years earlier in cases involving the term "natural" and other food
labeling matters.10
Similarly, the standing arguments that have succeeded in the early
motions to dismiss CBD consumer class actions followed similar
standing arguments made years earlier in food and beverage class
actions.11
The preemption arguments that have largely been deferred in CBD
consumer class actions to date could become a powerful argument if
and when the FDA completes its CBD rulemaking. The preemption
defense has been particularly effective when the preemption
arguments focus on state law claims that require defendants to omit
or add language to their federally approved or mandated product
labeling, or where plaintiffs otherwise seek to require something
different from what federal standards mandate.12 These arguments
could be particularly compelling once the FDA issues its
long-anticipated rulemaking with respect to CBD products.
Until then, primary jurisdiction will likely continue to gain
traction. The FDA's comprehensive regulatory scheme over food,
dietary supplement, drug, and cosmetic products, combined with the
FDA's frequently-expressed intention to issue rulemaking with
respect to CBD-products, and a need for national uniformity in how
such rulemaking will interface with state requirements, converge to
make primary jurisdiction especially appropriate for CBD-related
class actions.13
How to Best Position Your Products
Until the FDA issues its long-awaited rulemaking regarding CBD
products, companies can take the following steps to best position
their products to avoid litigation and/or succeed in the event
litigation arises:
-- Work with reputable labs to ensure the amount of CBD stated on
product labeling and advertising is accurate;
-- Ensure that the product is manufactured according to
appropriate current Good Manufacturing Processes (cGMPs);
-- Ensure that any claims made on product labeling and/or in
advertising are consistent with FDCA requirements and applicable
FDA guidance to date -- for example, if the product is a dietary
supplement, avoid making express or implied claims that it can cure
or prevent disease;
-- Maintain a file with appropriate substantiation to support
any claims stated in product labeling and advertising;
Work with legal counsel to stay abreast of developments in federal
and state laws applicable to hemp-derived CBD products, and how any
changes might impact potential class action defenses; and
If a lawsuit arises, work with legal counsel to develop a strategy
that not only resolves the current litigation as efficiently as
possible, but also positions the company strategically for any
future consumer claims that may arise. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eni Rewind Still Defends Suit over Ravenna Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eni Rewind SpA continues to face criminal proceedings over asbestos
matters at the Ravenna site, according to Eni S.p.A.'s Form 6-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
month of August 2020.
Eni S.p.A. states, "Eni Rewind SpA. Proceeding relating to the
asbestos at the Ravenna site. A criminal proceeding is pending
before the Tribunal of Ravenna relating to the crimes of culpable
manslaughter, injuries and environmental disaster, which have been
allegedly committed by former Eni Rewind employees at the site of
Ravenna. The site was acquired by Eni Rewind following a number of
corporate mergers and acquisitions. The alleged crimes date back
to 1991. In the proceeding there are 75 alleged victims. The
plaintiffs include relatives of the alleged victims, various local
administrations, and other institutional bodies, including local
trade unions. Eni Rewind asserted the statute of limitation as a
defense to the instance of environmental disaster for certain
instances of diseases and deaths. The court at Ravenna decided
that all defendants would stand trial and held that the statute of
limitation only applied with reference to certain instances of
crime of culpable injury. Eni Rewind reached some settlements. In
November 2016, the Judge acquitted the defendants in all the
contested cases except for one, an asbestos case, for which a
conviction was handed down. The defendants, the Prosecutor and the
plaintiffs appealed the decision, which with the ruling of May 25,
2020 confirmed the outcome of the first degree proceeding. He also
declared inadmissible the appeals of numerous civil parties. The
deadlines for appealing to the Third Instance Court have not yet
elapsed."
A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://is.gd/TsqO0a
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 30 PI Suits at July 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing 30 pending asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits as of July 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020.
The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the
use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the
future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss,
personal injury or property damage or violated environmental,
health or safety or other laws.
"Such product liability claims have included and may in the future
include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design,
a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979.
"Since 2002 and as of July 31, 2020, approximately 1,009
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we
vigorously defend against them. Of these, 969 have been dismissed
without any payment by us, 30 are pending and only 10 have been
settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our
financial condition or operating results."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PpKqF7
*********
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 ***