/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200922.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 190
Headlines
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Claims
AGAPE HEALTH: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Son Suit Says
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Advanced Rehab Appeals Decision in TCPA Suit
AMP: Contract Prevents Planners From Joining Class Action
ANAPLAN INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Findley Says
AVIVA METALS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dorsey Says
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Gross Law Announces Class Action
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Schall Law Reminds of Class Action
BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Alamilla Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
BIG FISH: Lays Off Staff as Judge OKs $155MM Settlement
BIG OX ENERGY: Lawsuit Asserting Negligence Settled and Dismissed
BROADLEAF MARKETING: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CABOT OIL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
CANADA: Audi Start-Stop Class Action Filed
CAPITAL ONE: $13MM Settlement in Figueroa Suit Has Prelim Approval
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gonzales Suit Moved to C.D. California
CHARTER FOODS: Gallagher Seeks to Certify Assistant Managers Class
CHEMIST CREATIONS: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
CJS SOLUTIONS: Vallone Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Circuit
CLAIRE'S STORES: Rossi Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
COFFMAN SPECIALTIES: Quiroz Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY: Paguada Suit Asserts Breach under ADA
COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit
CRUSH CITY: Morgan Seeks to Certify Technician Employees Class
D&A SERVICES: Collection Letter Is Misleading, Leszczynski Claims
DOREL USA: Tenzer-Fuchs Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
DPS LAND: FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified in Raptis Suit
DRAKE-STATE AIR: Dill Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Installers
ELECTROLUX HOME: Midea Wants Retransfer of Rice Suit Vacated
EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Can't Compel Ameren Subpoena Compliance
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Lowey Dannenberg Announces Class Action
EQT CORPORATION: Court Denies Motion to Certify FLSA Class
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Says
EUPHORIA WELLNESS: Jackson Suit Moved From California to Nevada
EVOQUA WATER: Kaskela Law Announces Investigation of Firm
EWALD & ASSOCIATES: Dressel Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
FLOWER FOODS: Noll Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to First Circuit
GATESTONE & CO: Adams Asserts Breach of FDCPA
GE CAPITAL: 2nd Cir. Upholds Denial of Arbitration Bid in Belton
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Centre
GRUMA CORPORATION: Orozco Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Morrison Suit Transferred to E.D. California
HOUSTON ASTROS: Appeals Ruling in Wallach Suit to Texas App. Ct.
HUDSON VALLEY: Faces Taylor Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
HUFFY CORPORATION: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
J2 GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
J2 GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
JOVIA FINANCIAL: Smith Seeks Refund of Improperly Charged Fees
KW PROPERTY: Turizo Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Practices
LASH BELLE: Jiang Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid and Overtime Wages
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Stays Bowles Wage Class Suit for One Year
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Solis Sues Over 5.52% Drop in Share Price
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Clark Files FCRA Suit in Minnesota
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Rowan TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
LLOYD'S LONDON: 15 Oz Fresh Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
LONDON LUXURY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Says
LONG BEACH HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Parra Alleges
LUMINARY MEDIA: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
MDL 2641: Master Complaint Filed in Bard IVC Filters Litigation
MDL 2836: Merck Appeals Ruling in Zetia Ezetimibe Antitrust Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Barcus Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ergas Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Rosner Files FDCPA Suit in New York
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Kahn Swick Probes Officers and Directors
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rudik Balks at $6.5 Billion Sale to J&J
MULHOLLAND TENNIS: Gallo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nguyen Suit Transferred to California
NATIONWIDE REAL: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Matos in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Drayton FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 10 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
O.J. SMITH: Certification of NCWHA & AWPA Classes Sought
OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES: Smith Sues Over Collection of Illegal Liens
ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
ONESPAN INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds October 19 Deadline
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in SEPTA Suit to 3rd Circuit
PERFECT BAR: Paguada Suit Alleges ADA Violation
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
PORTLAND GENERAL: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Firm Continues to Investigate Claims
PROGENITY INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Oct. 27 Deadline
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Connors Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
PROMETRIC LLC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
PSI LLC: Fails to Pay Operators' Overtime Wages, Gaurmer Claims
QUAINT OAK: Mahoney Sues in E.D. Penn. Alleging Violation of ADA
RAJA 786: Chowdhury Sues Over Unpaid Tips, Minimum and OT Wages
REEDS JEWELERS: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
SAKS & COMPANY: Esposito Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
SCANA CORP: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Metzler Stockholder Suit
SCHENECTADY, NY: Brian Pommer Files Class Action
SENEX LAW: Lord Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
SETERUS INC: Second Amended Fordham Suit Under FDCPA Dismissed
SIXTHREEZERO BICYCLE: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
SNAK KING CORP: Paguada Suit Alleges ADA Violation
SONIC CORP: Johnson Suit Transferred to Kansas Dist. Ct.
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in New York
SPRING BANK: Franchi Balks at Misleading Statement on F-Star SEA
STARKIST CO: Balks at Gardner Class Status Bid
SUSHI OTA INC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA
TENNANT COMPANY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Watson Suit
TEZOS FOUNDATION: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit Over its $232MM ICO
TRIAD MANUFACTURING: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Smith ERISA Suit
U.S. XPRESS: Terry Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class in "Stein" Suit
UNITED STATES: Feds Seek Dismissal of H-2B Class Action Lawsuit
VARIAN MEDICAL: Kent Suit Challenges $16.4-Bil. Sale to Siemens
VIVIENNE WESTWOOD: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Guglielmo Says
WALLER ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Bowers Alleges
WELLS FARGO BANK: Sorace Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
WHEELING CITY, WV: Temporary Restraining Bid Filed in Sturgeon Suit
WILKES GROUP: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
WIRECARD AG: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
YIELDSTREET INC: Misleads Investors to Buy Products, Tecku Claims
*********
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NasdaqGS: ACAD) ("ACADIA" or the
"Company") against certain of its officers and directors.
Specifically, a class-action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against
ACADIA and certain of its current and former officers recently
survived, in part, certain defendants' attempts to have the case
dismissed.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) adverse events and safety concerns related to NUPLAZID
threatened the drug's initial and continuing FDA approval; (2)
ACADIA engaged in business practices likely to attract regulatory
scrutiny; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
ACADIA's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
If you are a current, long-term shareholder of ACADIA holding
shares before May 2016, you may have standing to hold ACADIA
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors
of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also
be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance
to prevent future wrongdoing.
If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
Additionally, if you have owned shares of ACADIA since before May
2016, you can go to
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/ACADIAPharmaceuticalsInc.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Jim Baker
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Tel No: 619-814-4471
E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
AGAPE HEALTH: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Son Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HYE YOUNG SON, JAE MIN LEE, and KYONG SIM CHE v. AGAPE HEALTH
MANAGEMENT INC., DONG CHUL CHOI, and SUN OK LEE, Case No.
1:20-cv-01047 (E.D. Va., Sept. 8, 2020), alleges violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as personal care aide,
giving companionship, care and assistance to daily activities of
the Defendants' clients, including rides and feeding food.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week, but they were never paid the proper amount
of overtime wages. Allegedly, the Defendants manipulated their pay
stubs to hide the true regular rate and hours worked by the
Plaintiffs, thereby, failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiffs all
overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the FLSA.
Agape Health Management, Inc., provides a level of quality
caregiving for each client including day care and home health
service. Dong Chul Choi is the President of the corporate Defendant
Agape, while Sun Ok Lee is the owner, Chairman and CEO of the
corporate Defendant Agape. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Hyunkweon Rhu, Esq.
RYU & RYU, PLC
301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
Vienna, VA 22180
Tel: (703) 319-0001
Fax: (703) 562-0787
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Advanced Rehab Appeals Decision in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ADVANCED REHAB AND
MEDICAL, P.C. v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01149, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at
Jackson.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge J.
Daniel Breen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Eastern Division, granted Advanced Rehab's motion for
class certification.
Advanced Rehab initiated the action on Aug. 4, 2017, against
Defendant Amedisys, and other parties, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA"), stemming from faxes Amedisys
transmitted to the Plaintiff. In the putative class action,
Advanced Rehab seeks to join all similarly situated Plaintiffs via
the motion for class certification.
Advanced Rehab alleges that between Nov. 23, 2015, and July 13,
2017, Amedisys, a Louisiana limited liability company that provides
in-home health care services, sent it unsolicited faxes in an
effort to facilitate referrals. The Plaintiff avers that a total of
216,897 similar faxes were sent to the proposed class of
Plaintiffs.
On April 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. In its supporting memorandum, Amedisys explained that
only persons who had provided at least two referrals within a
12-month period received faxes, and, furthermore, each of those
documents contained an opt-out notice that complied with the TCPA's
requirements. The Defendant sought summary judgment on the issues
of (1) whether the opt-out notice was clear and conspicuous; (2)
whether the notice set forth the requirements for a proper opt-out
request as set forth in 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(2)(D)(iii) & (E);
and (3) whether the notice complied with the requirements of
section 227(d).
On Aug. 15, 2018, the Court granted the Defendant's motion, in
part, holding that the opt-out notice (1) was clear and conspicuous
as a matter of law; and (2) complied with the statutory
requirements of Section 227(b)(2)(D)(iii), (E)(i) & (ii)2.
Because of a lack of argument from the Defendant, the Court denied
summary judgment as to (1) the compliance of the opt-out notice
with respect to Secttion 227(b)(2)(E)(iii); and (2) whether the
timestamp at the top of the faxed document satisfied the statute's
directive under Section 227(d)(1)(B). Amedisys's Oct. 22, 2018
response to Advanced's motion for class certification revisits
these issues at length.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Advanced Rehab and
Medical, P.C., Case No. 20-506, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner In re: ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C., A
Tennessee corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by:
Glenn Lorne Hara, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com
Defendant-Respondent AMEDISYS HOLDING, LLC is represented by:
Kevin C. Baltz, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW
150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 244-9270
E-mail: kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com
AMP: Contract Prevents Planners From Joining Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Grieve at smh.com.au reports that AMP financial planners
have been asked to sign a contract that would force them to
compensate the troubled wealth giant for any damages related to
class actions should they sell their business.
These contracts have only been issued to a small number of planners
who have been offered exit terms that go "above and beyond" what is
legally required, according to AMP Financial Planners Association
chief executive Neil Macdonald.
However, Mr Macdonald said the deed of release terms would prohibit
planners from participating in the class action launched by
current and former aligned advisers in July and could leave them in
a worse off position in case the lawsuit is successful.
"The planners who have been asked to sign these need to get their
own legal advice and understand if they sign that clause they won't
be able to participate in the class action."
"They have to make that judgement call," Mr Macdonald said. "Do you
take the offer today or do you wait until the case settles which
might be another one to two years?"
The class action filed by the advisers in July was triggered by
changes made by AMP to a longstanding policy - the Buyer of Last
Resort (BOLR) -- that determines the value of their businesses.
The previous BOLR agreement was more generous than the industry
standard, with retiring advisers being paid four times the annual
revenue of their client books once they left the industry. The
policy was part of AMP's strategy to become the country's largest
financial planning network but was criticised in the banking royal
commission for incentivising the sale of in-house financial
products.
AMP chief executive Francesco De Ferrari is leading a new strategy
to make its adviser network more "professional, compliant and
productive" and has predicted it will result in around 30 per cent
of the network dropping off.
In August last year, AMP reduced the BOLR rate to 2.5 times annual
revenue in an effort to cut costs. The change has drastically
pushed down the value of adviser businesses, leaving many in debt.
The Age and Sydney Morning Herald has been contacted by scores of
current and former advisers who claim they have developed mental
health issues as a result.
"The impact that this has had on my family, staff and myself has
been absolutely devastating," said one adviser, who could not speak
publicly due to signing a confidentiality agreement. "I have gone
through every emotion possible and I just feel completely drained,
empty, disillusioned, betrayed, angry, depressed and frightened
about my future."
The advisers claim AMP has been unwilling to negotiate better exit
deals or reverse the policy for long-standing employees. One
adviser, who also could not be identified for legal reasons, said
his business was previously worth $2.4 million with debt of $1
million and the BOLR changes meant he now owes AMP $300,000.
"My retirement plan is now gone. I have to sell two properties and
will be working for the next 10 years plus," he said.
The adviser lawsuit is among the four class actions AMP is
preparing to battle. Mr De Ferrari has publicly criticised
Australia's class action industry, claiming the litigation is
increasing the cost of doing business which may lead to job
losses.
An AMP spokesman said he could not comment on individual contracts
with advisers for legal reasons, but pointed to an old statement
regarding the "difficult but necessary" decision to change the BOLR
terms.
"Throughout the process AMP has consulted with affected advisers,
the industry associations and the Small Business Ombudsman,
including participating in several mediation sessions with
advisers. We are providing support to advisers to help them manage
the BOLR changes and make an informed decision for their future,"
the spokesman said.
Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill has been agitating for AMP to be
brought in front of the upper house finance committee so the
legality of the BOLR changes can be investigated. She secured
cross-party support from Liberal whip Bert van Manen, who described
the policy change as "unconscionable".
However, the push was knocked back, with the majority of committee
members voting against the proposal. Senator O'Neill said she was
deeply disappointed by the result.
"They chose to protect the powerful AMP and leave the lingering
traumatised advisors to the mercies of a long court battle," she
said. "Profit at any price is not commerce. It is exploitation."
Senator O'Neill said the recent departure of chair David Murray and
director John Fraser over showed shareholders would not tolerate
poor corporate culture.
"A Parliamentary inquiry into AMP's BOLR changes will serve as a
reminder to all financial services providers will be put on notice
that they cannot quietly backslide into old, bad habits."
The news comes as AMP raised the "white flag" and put up parts of
the company for sale following another reputational crisis
involving weeks of investor pressure over its failure to
appropriately deal with a sexual harassment complaint. [GN]
ANAPLAN INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Anaplan Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the dates
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN)
Investors Affected : November 21, 2019 - February 26, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Anaplan Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization
and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were
causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals;
and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for "calculated
billings growth" was baseless and unattainable. Further, while in
possession of this material non-public information, Anaplan
insiders dumped approximately $30 million worth of Anaplan stock at
artificially inflated prices.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/anaplan-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9072&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Findley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JADE FINDLEY, on behalf of the State of California and all others
similarly aggrieved v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC, WALT SMITH, and
DOES 1-50, Case No. 20STCV34633 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 10, 2020), is brought for violations of Private Attorneys
General Act of California Labor Code, including failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated resident
services coordinators minimum wages and overtime pay at the correct
regular rate of pay.
According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide
meal and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof, to
provide accurate wage statements, to timely pay wages owed upon
termination, and to provide sick leaves.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a resident services
coordinator since July 10, 2019.
Avenue5 Residential LLC provides multifamily property management
services and apartments for rent throughout the United States, with
its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Crosner, Esq.
Blake Jones, Esq.
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Nikki Trenner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (818) 700-9973
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
nikki@crosnerlegal.com
AVIVA METALS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Dorsey Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD DORSEY and CRAIG MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. AVIVA METALS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-02014 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 8, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the
statutes and common law of the State of Ohio, by failing to pay
overtime wages to its workers.
Plaintiff Dorsey was employed by the Defendant as a maintenance
worker from January 2020 to August 2020, while Plaintiff Murphy was
employed as a machinist from February 2020 to August 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other members of the
FLSA Collective and Ohio Class frequently worked more than 40 hours
in a single workweek. However, the Defendant consistently failed to
pay them overtime at a rate of one and one half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Aviva Metals, Inc., is a leading of continuous cast bronze in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Tel: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Gross Law Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC PINK:BAYRY)
Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: 1) following its acquisition of
Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of
dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits
brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its
glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2)
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form/?id=9072&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Schall Law Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or "the Company") (OTC PINK:BAYRY)(OTC
PINK:BAYZF) for violations of 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 May 23,
2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Bayer failed to disclose that the
acquisition of Monsanto would cause the Company to suffer from
exposure to massive judgments and reputational damage if lawsuits
related to Monsanto's Roundup product were successful. The
Company's positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto
acquisition and the benefits it would create were false. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the class
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Bayer, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]
BEYER & ASSOCIATES: Alamilla Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LYNN ALAMILLA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BEYER &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:20-cv-01430-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
A copy of the Plaintiff's Placeholder motion to certify class dated
Sept. 11, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2FU9zPO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
BIG FISH: Lays Off Staff as Judge OKs $155MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Conneller at casino.org reports that social casino developer
Big Fish Games is expected to lay off 250 staff members as part of
a restructuring process as it downsizes, according to a staff memo
dated Sept. 1.
This is the second round of layoffs in as many years. The new
cutbacks, which mainly affect its Seattle office, come just 24
hours after a federal judge issued preliminary approval of two
class-action settlements.
These will see Big Fish owner Aristocrat Technologies, and former
owner Churchill Downs Inc, cough up $155 million to compensate
former customers who lost money via the Big Fish app.
The lawsuits stem from an initial case against Big Fish brought in
2015 by former player Cheryl Kater.
Shock Ruling
Kater argued that Big Fish Games constituted illegal gambling in
Washington State and claimed she was entitled to recoup her losses
under an antiquated law called the Recovery of Money Lost at
Gambling Act.
The district court tossed the case. But in 2018 a federal appellate
judge sensationally sided with Kater. Thus, Washington became one
of a very few jurisdictions in the world that considers games
played with virtual 'play-money' chips to be bona fide gambling
games.
Washington defines gambling as "risking something of value on the
outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not
under the person's control or influence to receive something of
value in the event of a certain outcome."
Judge Milan D. Smith ruled the virtual play chips used in Big
Fish's Casino games constituted "something of value," despite their
lack of direct monetary worth--a ruling with huge ramifications for
the social games industry.
Lawmakers Batting for Big Fish
Copresidents Andrew Pedersen and Jason Willig made no mention of
the settlements in the staff memo. Rather, the layoffs were part of
a strategy to pivot from a multi-platform provider to a
mobile-focused operation.
"The scale that Big Fish developed over many years as a
multi-platform publisher has made it difficult to successfully lead
in mobile, which requires greater agility and different operating
and creative capabilities," they wrote. "By pivoting how we operate
and sharpening focus, we will gain increased flexibility to engage
players more effectively and invest more for the future."
Two bills introduced in the Washington legislature in February look
to safeguard the state's gaming industry. An estimated 20 percent
of the global video game development industry is now based in
Washington.
The bills, sponsored by State Rep. Zach Hudgins (D-11th) and State
Sen. Mark Mullet (D-5th), would modify state gambling law to exempt
games where players do not cash out for real money in order to
protect the industry from more lawsuits. [GN]
BIG OX ENERGY: Lawsuit Asserting Negligence Settled and Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit accusing Big Ox Energy of negligence
and causing a nuisance near its now-closed South Sioux City
biofuels plant has been settled and dismissed.
The suit, filed by South Sioux City homeowners Gary Johnson and
Sara Blum, was dismissed on Aug. 27, court records show.
Robert Stahle, a South Sioux City attorney, who along with a
Detroit law firm specializing in class action cases represented
Johnson and Blum, said the case has been resolved. He declined
further comment.
Filed in January 2019 in U.S. District Court in Omaha, the suit
alleged that odors from the plant had interfered with local
residents' ability to enjoy their life and property and had damaged
property values.
Though never certified as a class action, the suit's proposed class
included more than 2,000 households within a 2-mile radius of the
plant, located in the Roth Business Park on the city's south side,
and damages being sought were approximately $5 million.
A Big Ox spokesman did not immediately return messages for
comment.
The Wisconsin-based company shut down the plant, which converted
organic waste into methane and also pretreated industrial waste and
discharged it to Sioux City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, in April
2019 after Sioux City declined to renew the company's wastewater
treatment permit. The city's action was due in part to outstanding
fees, fines and other charges of more than $3 million, a total Big
Ox disputes.
In January, Nebraska regulators revoked Big Ox's air and stormwater
permits because of a continual failure to comply with state
regulations.
Subject to odor complaints soon after it began operations in
September 2016, Big Ox still faces 15 lawsuits filed in Dakota
County District Court by residents living near the plant.
Those lawsuits, all filed in 2017 and 2018, claim that toxic gases
from the plant backed up into their homes through the city's sewer
system and have caused health problems and property damage. The
City of South Sioux City also is named in those suits.
Big Ox still faces a federal lawsuit filed by Carol Baker, who
claims the company is partially responsible for her husband's death
and that odors and gases from the plant ruined their home, making
it uninhabitable. Robert Baker Sr., 74, died Dec. 29, 2016, two
months after he and Carol Baker left their home at 3826 G St. They
were staying in a hotel when Baker was injured in a fall, leading
to complications that caused his death, the lawsuit says.
Judges also have entered at least three judgments against the
company for nonpayment of claims to suppliers and others who
provided services. [GN]
BROADLEAF MARKETING: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadleaf Marketing &
SEO, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Broadleaf Marketing & SEO,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04230-TJS (E.D. Pa., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Broadleaf Marketing & SEO, LLC is both a digital marketing and
website development agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
MORROW & ARTIM, P.C.
304 Ross St., 7th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-1250
E-mail: csm@ConsumerLaw365.com
CABOT OIL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Cabot Oil & Gas
Corporation. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=9066&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020
Class Period: October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020
Allegations against COG include that: (i) Cabot had inadequate
environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly
mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures;
(ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty
gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to
subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement,
as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot
continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal
liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CANADA: Audi Start-Stop Class Action Filed
------------------------------------------
An Audi Start-Stop class action lawsuit in Canada alleges the
system, meant to help a driver, really does the opposite by
allegedly causing a loss of braking, steering power and
acceleration.
Included in the Audi Start-Stop Canadian class action are these
models if equipped with the systems.
2017-2020 Audi A3
2017-2020 Audi A4
2017-2020 Audi A5
2017-2020 Audi A6
2017-2020 Audi A7
2017-2020 Audi A8
2017-2020 Audi S3
2017-2020 Audi S4
2017-2020 Audi S6
2017-2020 Audi S8
2017-2020 Audi Q5
2017-2020 Audi Q7
2017-2020 Audi Q8
2017-2020 Audi SQ5
2017-2020 Audi TT
2017-2020 Audi TTS
If the system works properly, it should automatically turn off the
engine when the car is braking to a stop, and releasing the brake
pedal to start moving again should restart the engine.
The class action says a Start-Stop system isn't worth much unless
it works properly, and the Audi systems allegedly fail that task.
"The Start/Stop system in a vehicle must not shut off the engine
too soon, so as to disengage power steering and power brakes before
the vehicle has come to a stop, and it must restart the engine
immediately when the vehicle begins moving so that power brakes,
power steering and acceleration are available."
The Canadian plaintiff leased a new 2017 Audi A4, but the
Start-Stop system allegedly causes the engine to shut down before
the vehicle comes to a complete stop. This causes problems with the
power steering, while the brake pedal allegedly becomes hard and
the brakes fail to operate properly.
When restarting from a stop, the Audi A4 allegedly lurches forward
and the power steering doesn't immediately engage, making it
difficult to steer the car. In addition, the A4 allegedly at first
will not accelerate but then blasts forward.
"The vehicle while stopped on an incline or hill will first roll
back after the Plaintiff releases his foot from the brake pedal. As
such, the Start/Stop Defect has nearly caused the Plaintiff to have
a number accidents." - Audi lawsuit
Audi allegedly knew or should have known the systems cause the
engines to shut down too early when slowing down, then they fail to
restart as intended. The consequences are serious, leaving vehicle
occupants open to injuries or even death when the Start-Stop
systems malfunction.
Audi allegedly failed to recall or repair the systems even as
customers continued to complain about the dangers.
In addition to customer complaints, the class action says Audi
issued and revised a technical service bulletin (TSB) about the
Start-Stop system. The most recent bulletin issued in November 2018
included all 2017-2019 Audi vehicles, except electric and hybrid.
The TSB informed dealerships about these customer concerns.
"The Start/Stop system does not shutdown when the driver thinks it
should."
"The engine is not automatically switched off or on."
"The engine restarts from a start/stop for reasons unknown to the
driver."
However, the plaintiff claims the bulletin doesn't offer any
solution to the complaints and instead says the symptoms may be
normal.
"The Start/Stop system is complex and the number of the conditions
affecting it is high. In many cases concerns about the Start/Stop
system may actually be normal operation or influenced by the
actions of the driver or passenger." - Audi TSB
The Audi Start-Stop system allegedly requires expensive repairs,
car rentals, towing charges, time off work and other costs, while
customers allegedly lose money as the vehicles lose their values.
The Audi Canada Start-Stop class action lawsuit was filed in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia: Dusanjh v. Audi AG, et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Garcha & Company.
Spread the word. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: $13MM Settlement in Figueroa Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB FIGUEROA and MARY JACKSON, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL
ONE, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18cv692 JM (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The dispute centers around the fees Defendant Capital One charges
its customers for using Out-of-Network ("OON") automatic teller
machines ("ATMs"). When a Capital One accountholder withdraws
funds from an OON ATM they are typically assessed a $2 or $3 fee by
the ATM owner along with a $2 charge by Capital One. Capital One
also charges its accountholders a third fee if a customer checks
their balance while in the process of making a cash withdrawal at
OON ATMs.
The Plaintiffs allege that these fees for OON balance inquiries, or
"third" fees, were wrongfully charged and were in violation of
Capital One's standardized account agreement, Fee Schedule and
Electronic Funds Transfers Agreement and Disclosure. Typically,
Capital One charged its customers $2.001 for each OON balance
inquiry about which they complain.
On April 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs initiated the action by filing
suit. On May 30, 2019, an amended complaint was filed that alleges
eight causes of action, namely: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) conversion; (4)
unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the unfair prong of
California's Unfair Competition Law; (6) violation of the
fraudulent prong of the UCL; (7) violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (8) violation of the New York
Consumer Protection Act.
On Oct. 7, 2019, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim.
On March 4, 2020, the parties participated in a private mediation
before Bruce Freidman, Esq., which, after a full-day's mediation,
led to the proposed settlement currently before the Court.
On May 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The motion
contained drafts of the notices to the potential class members that
would be emailed, mailed and posted on a website.
The class is defined as follows: All Capital One accountholders in
the United States who, within the Class Period, incurred at least
one OON Balance Inquiry Fee. At the hearing, Mr. Kaliel clarified
that the class includes former and current account holders.
The class period is defined as follows: (i) for settlement Class
Members whose accounts were established in Louisiana: the period
from April 6, 2008 to June 30, 2020; (ii) for settlement Class
Members whose accounts were established in Connecticut, New York,
and New Jersey: the period from April 6, 2012 to June 30, 2020;
(iii) for settlement Class Members whose accounts were established
in Virginia: the period from April 3, 2013 to June 30, 2020; (iv)
for settlement Class Members whose accounts were established in
Texas: the period from April 6, 2014 to June 30, 2020; and (v) for
Settlement Class Members whose accounts were established in the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware; the period from April
6, 2015 to June 30, 2020. During the hearing, the Court confirmed
that all class members are covered in the class periods.
A total of 1,683,345 Capital One customers are eligible class
member. The Settlement Agreement requires Capital One to pay a
gross settlement amount of $13 million, allocated as follows:
$10,000 as an incentive award for Figueroa; $10,000 as an incentive
award for Jackson; $3.9 million to the Plaintiffs' counsel. What
was unknown from the papers was the amount estimated to be paid to
BrownGreer, PLC, the Class Administrator for administration cost
and the Plaintiffs' counsels' costs. When questioned by the Court,
the Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Kaliel, informed the Court that
Administrator costs are estimated to be at $750,000, with the
counsels' cost estimated at approximately $100,000. The resulting
amount left in the settlement fund to pay the class member, based
off te Plaintiffs' numbers, is projected to be $8,230,000.
The settlement provides that each member who paid at least one OON
Balance Inquiry Fee that was assessed during the Class Period will
be entitled to receive a class member payment from the Settlement
Fund. Each member's payment will be equal to the member's pro rata
share of the settlement fund based on the total number of OON
Balance Inquiry Fees paid by class member. No information
regarding the average amount each class member will recover was
provided. At the hearing, Mr. Kaliel informed the Court that over
the class period Capital One has assessed the third fee
approximately 20 million times.
In exchange for their pro rata share, all the class members are
deemed to release Capital Once from claims relating to the subject
matter of the action.
The updated Notices submitted following the hearing clarify that
the settlement administration costs will be paid from the
Settlement Amount, and that both current and former Capital One
accountholders are eligible for relief under the Settlement. The
Notices also state expressly that the Plaintiffs may seek Service
Awards of up to $10,000 and may seek attorneys' fees of up to 30%
of the Settlement Amount, plus costs and expenses incurred in
litigating the matter.
Judge Miller finds on a preliminary basis that the provisions of
the Settlement Agreement and Release are fair, just, reasonable,
and adequate and, therefore, meet the requirements for preliminary
approval. For purposes of the Order, he adopted all defined terms
as set forth in the Agreement.
The Judge conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only,
the following Settlement Class described in the Agreement as: All
Capital One accountholders in the United States who, within the
Class Period, incurred at least one OON Balance Inquiry Fee.
The Class Period means: (i) for settlement Class Members whose
accounts were established in Louisiana: the period from April 6,
2008 to June 30, 2020; (ii) for settlement Class Members whose
accounts were established in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey:
the period from April 6, 2012 to June 30, 2020; (iii) for
settlement Class Members whose accounts were established in
Virginia: the period from April 3, 2013 to June 30, 2020; (iv) for
settlement Class Members whose accounts were established in Texas:
the period from April 6, 2014 to June 30, 2020; and (v) for
Settlement Class Members whose accounts were established in the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Delaware; the period from April
6, 2015 to June 30, 2020.
The Judge appointed, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiffs Jacob
Figueroa and Mary Jackson as the representatives for the Settlement
Class; Kaliel PLLC and Carlson Lynch as the Class Counsel; and
BrownGreer PLC as the Settlement Administrator.
The Settlement Administrator will administer the notice procedures
and distribute payments and will abide by the terms and conditions
of the Agreement regarding the duties the Settlement. All
reasonable fees and costs of the Settlement Administrator will be
paid from the Settlement Fund.
Capital One will deposit the Cash Settlement Amount into an escrow
account selected by the Settlement Administrator within 15 days of
the Order. It will implement the disclosure language changes, as
stated in Exhibit E to the Agreement, by June 30, 2020.
The Updated Class Notices, filed with the Court, are approved. The
Judge approved, as to form and content, the updated Settlement
Class Notices for the purpose of notifying the Settlement Class as
to the proposed Settlement, the Final Approval Hearing, and the
rights of Settlement Class members.
As soon as possible after the entry of the Order, but not later
than 70 days after the entry of the Order, the Settlement
Administrator will complete notice to the Settlement Class as
provided in the Agreement.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Jan. 11, 2021 at
10:00 a.m.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/o9VfqG from Leagle.com.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gonzales Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL GONZALES, SERGIO ROCHA, NORBETO ALARCON,
ALBERTO ARENA, FELIPE BECERRA, CRAIG BOWLAN, RONALD FLORES, DENNIS
HARMON, GERALD LLORENCE, JULIO HERNANDEZ, MICHAEL RALSTON, RICARDO
RAMOS, RAUL ROMERO, CARLOS SERPAS, RAYMOND ULMER, and EVERARDO
VILLA, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-02689, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on September 10, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08299-PA-AS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated field
operations maintenance technicians appropriate wages for on-call
work and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.
Charter Communications, LLC is a provider of broadband
communications services, with a principal place of business located
at 12405 Powerscourt Drive, in St. Louis, Missouri. Charter
Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications and mass media
company, with its principal place of business located at 12405
Powerscourt Drive, in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Velthoen, Esq.
Leslie A. McAdam, Esq.
Max R. Engelhardt, Esq.
FERGUSON CASE ORR PATERSON LLP
1050 S. Kimball Road
Ventura, CA 93004
Telephone: (805) 659-6800
Facsimile: (805) 659-6818
E-mail: mvelthoen@fcoplaw.com
lmcadam@fcoplaw.com
mengelhardt@fcoplaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
Aris E. Karakalos, Esq.
STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
121 N. Fir St., Suite F
Ventura, CA 93001
Telephone: (805) 641-6600
Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
aris@strausslawyers.com
CHARTER FOODS: Gallagher Seeks to Certify Assistant Managers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CARRIE GALLAGHER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER FOODS,
INC.; and CHARTER CENTRAL, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00049-RJC (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
conditional certification and approval to send notice of this
lawsuit to all members of the following proposed collective:
"all exempt "Assistant Managers" who worked for Defendants in
the United States at any time between January 10, 2017 and
January 1, 2020 and who worked more than 40 hours during one
or more workweeks (AM Collective)."
The Plaintiff alleges that Carrie Gallagher has uniformly alleged
that Defendants failed to pay her and all other similarly situated
AMs overtime compensation in accordance with the FLSA.
Specifically, she alleges that she and Defendants' AMs were
improperly classified as exempt and denied overtime compensation
for all hours worked above 40 in a work week.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' violations were deliberate
and their exemption policy was uniformly applied in order to reduce
restaurant labor costs--as demonstrated by the considerable
overtime hours Plaintiff was required to work in order to perform
routine, hourly tasks such as serving customers, ringing customers
up on the cash register, preparing food, working the drive-thru,
stocking, counting inventory, and cleaning the restaurant.
Charter Foods was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cfjk7f at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative AM Collective, are:
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
- and -
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1000
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
CHEMIST CREATIONS: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemist Creations Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chemist Creations Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07153 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
Chemist Creations offers men's contemporary fashion and
streetwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CJS SOLUTIONS: Vallone Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joyce Vallone and Erasmus Ikogor filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Joyce Vallone, et al.
v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-01532-PAM, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6,
2020, District Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.
Plaintiffs Vallone and Ikogor worked for Defendant HCI. In late
April and May 2018, Vallone worked at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester,
assisting physicians, nurses, and others with the transition to a
new computerized patient-management system. Ikogor also worked for
HCI at Mayo during this time. In addition, Ikogor worked for HCI
at hospitals in St. Louis and New York City.
The Plaintiffs contend that they were not paid for the time they
spent traveling from remote locations--usually their homes--to the
worksites and back to the remote location at the end of their
assignments. They assert that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
requires such payment. The Plaintiffs also contend that they
traveled to Rochester on April 29, 2018, at HCI's direction, only
to have the training scheduled for April 30, 2018, cancelled
abruptly late in the evening of April 29. HCI did not compensate
them for April 30, despite that they were in Rochester waiting to
work.
The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a FLSA class
consisting of all hourly paid, non-exempt, W-2 employees of The CJS
Solutions Group, LLC, d/b/a The HCI Group (HCI), whose time was
neither paid under the federal minimum wage or overtime laws: (1)
while engaging in out-of-town travel (with a corresponding
overnight stay), wherein the travel was undertaken during the
employee's normal working hours; or (2) on April 30, 2018, at the
Mayo Clinic location, for workers who did not live in the
Rochester, Minnesota area.
The class period is from June 10, 2016, through the date of any
order granting certification of the collective action. The
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as collective action
representatives and their counsel as the class counsel, directing
HCI to provide the Plaintiffs with the names of all the putative
class members, directing that notice be provided to all these
individuals in specific ways, and tolling the statute of
limitations as of the date the Plaintiffs filed the instant
Motion.
The appellate case is captioned as Joyce Vallone, et al. v. CJS
Solutions Group, LLC, Case No. 20-2874, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript is due on or before October 19, 2020;
-- Appendix is due on October 29, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellants Erasmus Ikogor and Joyce Vallone is due
on October 29, 2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Joyce Vallone, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Erasmus Ikogor, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kelly A. Lelo, Esq.
Thomas Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
LARSON & KING
30 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6500
E-mail: klelo@larsonking.com
Defendant-Appellee CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as HCI
Group, is represented by:
Corey J. Christensen, Esq.
Claire B. Deason, Esq.
Grant Daniel Goerke, Esq.
Jacqueline E. Kalk, Esq.
LITTLER & MENDELSON
1300 IDS Center
80 S. Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
Telephone: (612) 630-1000
E-mail: cchristensen@littler.com
cdeason@littler.com
ggoerke@littler.com
jkalk@littler.com
CLAIRE'S STORES: Rossi Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case JULIA ROSSI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.; CBI
DISTRIBUTING CORP., filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case No.
2020-CH-05218) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division on August 28, 2020. The clerk of
court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05090.
The case alleges violations of the Illinois Personal Information
Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
On July 7, 2020, Claire's Stores announced a data security incident
involving unauthorized access to information entered by customers,
including the Plaintiff, during the checkout process on the
Company's e-commerce Web sites.
Claire's Stores, Inc. is an American retailer of accessories,
jewelry, and toys primarily aimed toward girls, tweens and teens.
CBI Distributing Corp. is a jewelry store in Hoffman Estates,
Illinois.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq.
Carey S. Busen, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-1500
Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com
cbusen@bakerlaw.com
- and -
John S. Letchinger, Esq.
Maria Boelen, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 416-6200
Facsimile: (312) 416-6200
E-mail: jletchinger@bakerlaw.com
mboelen@bakerlaw.com
COFFMAN SPECIALTIES: Quiroz Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JOSE REFUGIO GONZALEZ QUIROZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COFFMAN
SPECIALTIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00022698-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
10, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01779-CAB-AHG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to timely pay wages owed at termination, and failure to
reimburse business expenses in violation of California Labor Code
and for unfair business practices in violation of California Unfair
Competition Law.
Coffman Specialties, Inc. is a company that specializes in the
construction of public and governmental projects with its principal
place of business located in San Diego, California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Van Allyn Goodwin, Esq.
Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101-3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: vgoodwin@littler.com
sfahimi@littler.com
COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY: Paguada Suit Asserts Breach under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cosmetic Dermatology, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cosmetic Dermatology, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07155 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
Cosmetic dermatology offers aesthetic skin care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm and Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP announced that
they have filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
plaintiff Crystal Garrett-Evans against Coty Inc. ("Coty" or "the
Company") (NYSE: COTY) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the Southern District of New York, captioned
Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc., et. al., and docketed under Case No.
20-cv-07277, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Coty securities between October 3,
2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Coty securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 3, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Coty's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions,
Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to
assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and
Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had
overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics;
(3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly
integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G,
including an adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its
inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating
the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies
from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing,
Coty's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Coty's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]
CRUSH CITY: Morgan Seeks to Certify Technician Employees Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY MORGAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. CRUSH CITY
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00027-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting certification of a
class action against the Defendant and authorizing that notice be
sent to members of the following classes:
Travel Time Class:
"all hourly-paid, non-exempt Technician Employees in such
positions as Laborer, Technician, Foreman, and Crew Leader
who were employed by Defendant within the two (2) years prior
to this action’s filing who have not been compensated for all
hours worked as a result of Defendant's failure to compensate
said employees for compensable travel time during the
workday";
Non-Discretionary Compensation Class:
"all hourly-paid, non-exempt Technician Employees in such
positions as Laborer, Technician, Foreman, and Crew Leader
who were employed by Defendant within the two (2) years prior
to this action's filing who have not been compensated for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at the
proper, correct, and/or lawful overtime rate of pay as a
result of the Defendant's failure to include all non-
discretionary forms of compensation, such as performance
bonuses, in said employees’ regular rates of pay for overtime
calculation purposes."
Crush City is in the Single-family housing construction business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FLrgkO at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
D&A SERVICES: Collection Letter Is Misleading, Leszczynski Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAL LESZCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. D&A SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case
No. 2:20-CV-04387 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their misleading collection letter that violates the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has a debt that was
allegedly incurred to Bank of America N.A., who contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, the Defendant
sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2020,
regarding the alleged debt.
The collection letter, however, was deceptively and improperly
advising the Plaintiff of the proper method for exercising his
validation rights under the FDCPA, which renders the letter
deceptive and misleading, the Plaintiff contends.
D&A Services, LLC, is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
DOREL USA: Tenzer-Fuchs Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Dorel U.S.A., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dorel U.S.A., Inc, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-04115 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
Dorel U.S.A., Inc. operates as a juvenile products company. The
Company offers car seats, travel systems, strollers, high chairs,
toddler beds, and swings and toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
DPS LAND: FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified in Raptis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as PETER RAPTIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. DPS LAND SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01262-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia
Reed Eddy entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class and issue notice pursuant to
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and
2. conditionally certifying FLSA collective:
"all Landmen, who performed the duties of a Leasing Agent,
employed by, or working on behalf of, DPS who were
classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate
with no overtime at any time in the past 3 years"; and
3. directing the parties to meet and confer in order to
jointly prepare a proposed Notice to the members of the
collective and to file the proposed Notice for the Court's
consideration no later than September 24, 2020.
DPS is a full service land company that is dedicated to the
Appalachian Basin.
A copy of the Court's Order conditionally certifying FLSA
collective is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2FoI15h at no extra charge.[CC]
DRAKE-STATE AIR: Dill Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Installers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD DILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. DRAKE-STATE AIR, INC., and STEVE M. CHRISMER, Case No.
3:20-cv-00373-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 8, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio
Constitution by failing to pay overtime wages to their installers.
The Plaintiff, who has worked as an Installer for the Defendants
since 2004, alleges that the Defendants did not pay him and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees for hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek from September 8, 2017, to present,
thereby, depriving them of their lawfully earned wages or overtime
premium wages. Moreover, the Plaintiff contends that he was
unlawfully terminated by the Defendants because he expressed intent
to file for workers' compensation benefits after suffering a
workplace injury, and also due to unlawful age discrimination.
Drake-State Air, Inc., provides plumbing, heating and
air-conditioning services. Steve M. Chrismer owns and operates the
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW, LLC
9200 Montgomery Road, Suite 11A
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Tel: 513-834-8254
Fax: 513-834-8253
Email: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
ELECTROLUX HOME: Midea Wants Retransfer of Rice Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midea Microwave and Electrical Appliances Manufacturing
Co., Ltd., filed a petition for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus in the lawsuit
entitled ELAINE RICE, ALEX KUKICH, ERIKA MENDOZA, JAMES HUNT, and
DEAN MAURO, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., SHARP MANUFACTURING
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a division of SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION;
SHARP APPLIANCES THAILAND LIMITED; MIDEA AMERICA CORP.; MIDEA
MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD; LOWE'S
HOME CENTERS, LLC; MODESTO DIRECT APPLIANCE, INC.; and ABC CORP.
1-10, Case No. 4:15-CV-00371, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The writ of mandamus seeks to direct the Honorable Matthew W.
Brann, United States District Judge in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania: (1) to vacate the order granting a request to
retransfer to the Eastern District of California; (2) to deny the
request for retransfer; and (3) to reinstate the Order dismissing
Midea China.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 13,
2020, Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (i) granted Sharp America's Motion
to Dismiss; (ii) granted Sharp Thailand's Motion to Dismiss; (iii)
granted Midea China's Motion to Dismiss; (iv) granted Midea
America's Motion to Dismiss; and (v) granted in part and denied in
part Electrolux, Lowe's, and Modesto's Partial Motion to Dismiss.
On Oct. 3, 2018, the named Plaintiffs, as well as other consumers
similarly situated, filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against seven Defendants. The Instant Complaint springs
from alleged defects in the stainless-steel handles of certain
microwaves that consumers install above their stove burner.
According to the Plaintiffs, these offending microwave handles
conduct too much heat from the stoves.
Plaintiffs Rice and Kukich bring the following claims against
Defendant Electrolux: (i) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2201; (ii) strict liability under theories of a design
defect and failure to warn; (iii) negligent failure to warn; (iv)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act;
(v) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (vi) breach
of an express warranty; and (vii) negligence.
Plaintiffs Mendoza and Hunt bring the following claims against
Defendants Electrolux, Midea America, Midea Microwave and
Electrical Appliances Manufactured Co., Ltd. ("Midea China"), Sharp
America, Sharp Thailand, Lowe's, and Modesto: (i) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (ii) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; and (iii) violation of
California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
Plaintiff Mauro brings the following claims: (i) Against Defendants
Electrolux, Midea America, Midea China, and Lowe's - violation of
New York's General Business Law Sections 349 and 350; (ii) against
Defendant Lowe's--violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act; (iii) against
Defendant Lowe's--breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; and (iv) against Defendants Electrolux, Lowe's,
and Midea China--unjust enrichment.
On Sept. 9, 2019, all Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Instant Complaint.
Judge Brann granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Among other things, he (i)
agrees with Defendants Sharp Thailand and Midea China that the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them; (ii) finds that
Mauro's claims against Midea America for violation of New York's
General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 are dismissed because
they are time-barred; (iii) finds that because Kukich lacks privity
with Electrolux, and no exceptions apply, Kukich's breach of
express warranty claim against Electrolux is dismissed; (iv) finds
that Kukich's claims against Electrolux for breach of express
warranty and breach of implied warranty both fail; (v) that the
Plaintiffs have presented no authority suggesting that Consumer
Legal Remedies Act liability should extend to an entity that only
tested an offending product; and (vi) Mauro's has sufficiently
alleged that the Handle Defect manifested itself in Mauro's
Microwave.
The Judge denied leave to amend. Among the grounds that could
justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility. "Futility" means that
the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Although there is a "liberal pleading
philosophy of the federal rules" a court will dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice because another
opportunity for amendment would be futile. Accordingly, if a claim
is vulnerable to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), but the plaintiff
moves to amend, leave to amend generally must be granted unless the
amendment would not cure the deficiency.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE MIDEA MICROWAVE AND
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., Case No. 20-2806, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner MIDEA MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. is represented by:
Gerhard P. Dietrich, Esq.
WARD GREENBERG HELLER & REIDY LLP
1835 Market St., Suite 650
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 836-1100
Facsimile: (215) 836-2845
E-mail: gdietrich@wardgreenberg.com
EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Can't Compel Ameren Subpoena Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN ROSSMAN, Individually and For Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. EN ENGINEERING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19 C 5768 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance With
the Non-party Subpoena.
In the Fair Labor Standards Act case, the dispute between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant is often a simple matter of whether the
Plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay, and, if so, whether the
Defendant paid him the right amount. Things are a bit more
complicated by the fact that the Defendant farmed these project
consultants/inspectors out to various gas and oil companies, and by
the fact that the Plaintiff and the counsel want to pursue the
litigation as a class action. But, perhaps not surprisingly given
the unfortunate course of modern discovery, discovery in the
relatively young case has become quickly complicated. The subpoena
motion is but one that the parties have recently filed.
Ameren was one of the companies the Defendant provided with project
consultant/inspectors. The Plaintiff served the subpoena at issue
on Jan. 3, 2020, setting Jan. 22, 2020 as the date for compliance.
While that is just a bit more than the benchmark 14 days, the
subpoena -- again, to a non-party -- was rather broad.
It demanded production of nearly a dozen categories of documents:
(i) the documents which contain information regarding ENE's alleged
violations of the FLSA for failing to pay overtime to Project
Consultants/Inspectors; (ii) the documents reflecting
communications between YOU and ENE regarding the lawsuit; (iii) the
documents that describe or specify the work that ENE performed for
YOU in any capacity during the relevant time period; (iv) the
documents reflecting any agreement(s), including but not limited to
the Master Service Agreement, for ENE to provide workers and
services to you during the relevant time period; (v) the documents
reflecting any payments made to ENE by you for services or workers
received from ENE during the relevant time period; (vi) the
documents reflecting the locations, project number, and project
name where you paid for the services of Project
Consultants/Inspectors supplied by ENE during the relevant time
period; (vii) any documents you supplied to ENE's Project
Consultants/Inspectors during the relevant time period containing
any of your practices, procedures, job requirements, or guidelines;
(viii) the documents evidencing any steps YOU took to ensure that
the Project Consultants/Inspectors supplied by ENE to you were paid
overtime compensation in accordance with the FLSA; (ix) all
documents exchanged between you and any putative class member
related to assignments to your projects, including but not limited
to communications concerning job duties, responsibilities,
benefits, pay, emails, reports, handbooks, and policies; (x) all
documents describing the job duties for the Project
Consultants/Inspectors supplied by ENE to you, including the
putative class member, during the relevant time period; and (xi)
all documents evidencing communications between you and any
putative class member during the relevant time period, including
all emails sent to, from, or about any putative class member.
Initially, it strikes even an impartial observer that the Plaintiff
ought to be getting a lot of the discovery -- categories 1-6, for
example -- from the party he sued, instead of subpoenaing a
non-party. As it turns out, there was a prologue to his nonparty
subpoena.
On Nov. 12, 2019, the Plaintiff issued discovery requests to the
Defendant, including Requests to Produce the following categories
of documents: (5) Produce all documents showing the locations where
services were rendered by Plaintiff and putative class members
during the FLSA limitations period; (7) Produce any Master Services
Agreements, along with any addendums thereto, between ENE and the
client(s) identified in Request for Production No. 4 for whom
Plaintiff and/or putative class member rendered services and/or
performed work during the FLSA limitations period; (8) Produce any
Master Services Agreement, along with any addendums thereto,
between ENE and each third party for which any Plaintiff and/or
putative class member performed work on ENE's behalf during the
FLSA limitations period; (9) Produce any contracts or agreements,
along with any addendums thereto, between ENE and each third party
for which any Plaintiff and/or putative class member performed work
on ENE's behalf during the FLSA limitations period; and (21)
Produce invoices from any third party to ENE for any work performed
by a Plaintiff or putative class member during the FLSA limitations
period.
There was obviously significant overlap between the documents the
Plaintiff could get from his opponent in the litigation and the
documents he subpoenaed from a third party some two months later.
Magistrate Judge Cole opines that it is beyond dispute that about
half of the categories of documents demanded by the subpoena are
duplicative of the discovery requests the Plaintiff properly served
on the Defendant. A non-party subpoena seeking information that is
readily available from a party through discovery may be quashed as
duplicative or cumulative. That is reason enough to deny the
Plaintiff's motion.
The upshot of all this is that the Plaintiff ought to have pursued
discovery from the company he sued before targeting a non-party.
The legitimacy of the subpoena to a non-party is determined by far
more than an examination of the relevancy of the materials sought
or the fact that it may be simpler for the subpoenaing party to
insist on production from a non-party rather than taking reasonable
steps to require the non-cooperative party to comply with its basic
discovery obligations.
In sum, the subpoena to Ameren violated the basic prohibition
against heaping unnecessary burdens on non-parties because the
Plaintiff did not exhaust other avenues before targeting a
non-party to the lawsuit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Compliance With the Non-party Subpoena will be denied. The
Plaintiff's motion wisely does not ask the Court to parse whatever
appropriate requests he may have made on Ameren from those that may
have been inappropriate for one reason or another. Nor should it.
It is not a Court's job to become, in effect, a lawyer for one of
the parties.
Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Cole denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with the Non-party
Subpoena. It does not mean that appropriate requests by the
Plaintiff can be ignored with impunity. They cannot. Judge
Easterbrook's opinion in Rickels v. City of South Bend, IN, 33 F.3d
785, 786-87 (7th Cir. 1994) ought not be overlooked.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/aDuo58 from
Leagle.com.
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery") (NASDAQ:
ERII) between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9057&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic
perspectives regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq
technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive
rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created
substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive
licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the
revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was
false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted
material facts.
If you suffered a loss in Energy Recovery you have until September
21, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Lowey Dannenberg Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the United States District Court Southern District Of New
York on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Energy Recovery
Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ERII) from
August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The class action alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
Energy Recovery develops and manufactures technologies for the oil
& gas, chemical and water industries. Its leading technology is
VorTeq hydraulic pump system. In 2015, Energy Recovery entered
into a 15-year licensing agreement with Schlumberger Technology
Corp. ("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of VorTeq. Under the
terms of the licensing agreement, Schlumberger paid $75 million
exclusivity fee and was to pay an additional $50 million milestone
payments in 2016.
On June 29, 2020, the Company announced the termination of the
licensing agreement with Schlumberger citing "different strategic
perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization."
Investors reacted negatively. On this news, shares of Energy
Recovery fell from $8.91 to $7.59 on June 30, 2020 and fell again
to $7.01 on July 1, 2020 a loss of 21.3%. As one analyst pointed
out, "[Energy Recovery] should have been able to perceive in
advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely
rising, odds of this outcome."
The Complaint alleges that Energy Recovery made false and
misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and
failed to disclose that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had
different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of
VorTeq (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of
the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger;
(iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than September 21, 2020. Any
member of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice.
If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Energy
Recovery's common stock from August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020, you
may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your
ability to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis
at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is
titled Visser v. Energy Recovery Inc., No.1:20-cv-05647-VM
(S.D.N.Y.).
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information about the
Company should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.
About Lowey Dannenberg
Since its inception in 1967, Lowey has specialized in the
prosecution of complex civil class action lawsuits and has grown
into one of the most successful shareholder litigation firms in the
field. Its investor litigation group has recovered billions of
dollars in the aggregate and has achieved landmark, long-term
corporate governance changes at public companies. Over decades of
zealous advocacy, Lowey has developed a profound knowledge of
securities and antitrust class action litigation. [GN]
EQT CORPORATION: Court Denies Motion to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM HEASTER Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, Case No.
2:19-cv-01463-DSC-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge David Stewart
Cercone entered an order:
1. granting Motions to Compel Arbitration filed by EQT
and EQT Production;
2. granting in part and denying in part EQT's Motion to
Dismiss. The motion is granted to the extent this
matter is referred to arbitration and denied in all
other respects.; and
3. denying a Motion to Certify Class filed on behalf of
Adam Heaster without prejudice to re-file at more
appropriate time.
The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action and collective
action against EQT under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, to recover overtime
wages allegedly due from his work as a landman in Western
Pennsylvania.
EQT Corporation is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and
pipeline transport. It is headquartered in EQT Plaza in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's Order denying Motion to Certify Class dated
Sept. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3iP9hIs at no extra charge.[CC]
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity v. ESURANCE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin Company, Case
No. 1:20-cv-23590-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2020), seeks redress for
the Defendant's systematic and uniform failure to reimburse
conditional payments made by the Plaintiff's Assignors and the
Class Members for accident-related medical expenses.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to honor its
primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act
("MSP Law") by failing to pay for or reimburse those expenses that,
instead, were paid by Medicare and/or Medicare Advantage Plans,
("MAOs"). As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical
expenses has been borne by Medicare and MAOs to the detriment of
the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
Pursuant to the Defendant's contractual obligations with its
Enrollees, and under state law, the Defendant is to provide
coverage for its Enrollees' accident-related medical expenses
without regard for whether the Enrollee was at fault for the
accident, or on a "no-fault" basis, , according to the complaint.
In large part, the deliberate and systematic avoidance of payment
and/or reimbursement obligations under the MSP Law by the
Defendant, and primary payers in general, has been successful in
its primary objective--i.e., to pass on accident-related medical
expenses to Medicare and MAOs, including the Plaintiff's Assignors
and the Class Members.
The Defendant's failure to reimburse the Plaintiff and Class
Members runs afoul of the Medicare Act and has directly contributed
to the ever-increasing costs of the Medicare system, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff is a Delaware series limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Miami, Florida.
Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is an automobile
or other liability insurer that provides either no-fault or med-pay
insurance to its customers, including Medicare beneficiaries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
EUPHORIA WELLNESS: Jackson Suit Moved From California to Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACQUELINE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EUPHORIA WELLNESS, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-03297, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on September 10, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01661-JCM-DJA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending text messages to the
cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members using
automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to promote its
services without prior express written consent.
Euphoria Wellness, LLC is a recreational marijuana and cannabis
dispensary with its principal place of business located at 7780 S.
Jones Blvd., in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
EVOQUA WATER: Kaskela Law Announces Investigation of Firm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that it is investigating Evoqua Water
Technologies Corporation ("Evoqua" or the "Company") (NYSE: AQUA)
on behalf of the Company's stockholders.
Recently a shareholder class action complaint was filed in federal
court on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company's
stock between November 1, 2017 and October 30, 2018. Among other
things, the complaint alleges that during that time period "Evoqua
engaged in increasingly aggressive tactics to artificially inflate
its reported revenue, including fraudulent accounting manipulations
in blatant violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
('GAAP')."
The investigation seeks to determine whether the members of
Evoqua's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the above alleged misconduct.
Current Evoqua stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the
Company's stock prior to October 30, 2018 are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or
by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/evoqua/,for additional information
about this investigation and their legal rights and options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Tel No: (484) 258 - 1585
(888) 715 - 1740
E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
EWALD & ASSOCIATES: Dressel Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREL DRESSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EWALD & ASSOCIATES INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-07400 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2020), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Ewald & Associates Inc. is a real estate corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC) between
February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fennec investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Fennec class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1926.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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK,
Fennec's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) as a result, regulatory approval for
PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Fennec's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1926.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf First Energy, Inc. ("FirstEnergy" or "the
Company") (NYSE: FE) investors that acquired securities between
February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.
FirstEnergy, Corp. made false and misleading statements to the
market. FirstEnergy and associated organizations and individuals
were the architects of a $60 million scheme which involved bribery
as well as the corruption of the political process, with the goal
of securing legislation favorable to its interest. FirstEnergy
secretly bribed Ohio politicians with tens of millions of dollars
to secure support for Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout of FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear generation
plants. The Company funneled millions of dollars through "dark
money" organizations in order to conduct a misleading advertising
campaign which was in favor of the bill, all the while concealing
the Company's involvement. FirstEnergy hired 15 signature-gathering
firms while bribing others involved in a ballot initiative aimed at
repeal of HB6 in order to thwart the effort. Based on these facts,
FirstEnergy made public statements that were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the truth about
FirstEnergy, Corp. was revealed to the market, investors suffered
damages.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
Tel No: 310-692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]
FLOWER FOODS: Noll Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to First Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Timothy Noll filed an appeal from the District Court
Judgment dated August 4, 2020, entered in his lawsuit entitled
TIMOTHY NOLL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. FLOWERS FOODS INC., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00493-LEW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine, Bangor.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lance E.
Walker (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification,
and (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion for Decertification of the
Conditionally Certified Collective Action.
In the action, Plaintiff Noll alleges that Defendants Flowers
Foods, LePage Bakeries, and CK Sales Company misclassify
Maine-based product distributors as independent contractors, and
that Maine and federal law require that he and other distributors
be compensated as employees.
The appellate case is captioned as TIMOTHY NOLL, Individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK
STREET LLC; CK SALES CO., LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
20-1864, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TIMOTHY NOLL, Individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
100 South Fifth St., Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 252-3570
Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com
samoriarity@baillonthome.com
- and -
Gordon Rudd, Esq.
David Cialkowski, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
80 S 8th Street
1100 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut St., Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (212) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Amy P. Dieterich
SKELTON, TAINTOR & ABBOTT
95 Main Street
Auburn, ME 04210
Telephone: (207) 784-3200
E-mail: adieterich@sta-law.com
- and -
Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com
rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
Defendants-Petitioners FLOWERS FOODS INC., LEPAGE BAKERIES, PARK
STREET, LLC, and CK SALES CO., LLC, are represented by:
A. Craig Cleland, Esq.
C. Garner Sanford, Jr., Esq.
Kevin P. Hishta, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4800
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 870−1732
E-mail: craig.cleland@ogletree.com
garner.sanford@ogletree.com
- and -
Margaret S. Hanrahan, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
201 South College Street Suite 2300
Charlotte, NC 28244
Telephone: (704) 342−2588
E-mail: margaret.hanrahan@ogletree.com
- and -
Frederick B. Finberg, Esq.
Peter Bennett, Esq.
THE BENNETT LAW FIRM
121 Middle Street Suite 300
P.O. Box 7799
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207) 773−4775
E-mail: rfinberg@thebennettlawfirm.com
GATESTONE & CO: Adams Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co.
International Inc. The case is styled as Marija Adams,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gatestone & Co. International Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05187 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Gatestone & Co International Inc. operates as an employment
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
Law Offices of Joseph P. Doyle, LLC
105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
Schaumburg, IL 60193
Tel: (630) 460-7655
Email: jdavidson@fightbills.com
GE CAPITAL: 2nd Cir. Upholds Denial of Arbitration Bid in Belton
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NYREE BELTON, KIMBERLY BRUCE, Debtors. NYREE
BELTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, KIMBERLY BRUCE, Debtor-Appellee, v. GE
CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, Defendant-Appellant, CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK,
N.A., Appellants, Case Nos. 19-648 (L), 19-655 (Con.) (2d Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the order
of the district court affirming the decision of the bankruptcy
court denying the Appellants' motions to compel arbitration.
In 2007, Appellees Nyree Belton and Kimberly Bruce opened credit
card accounts with GE and Citi, respectively. Unfortunately, the
Debtors quickly fell behind on their credit card debt and began to
miss payments.
The Banks, Citigroup Inc., and Citibank, N.A., eventually "charged
off" that delinquent debt -- changing its accounting treatment from
a receivable to a loss -- and sold it to third-party consumer debt
purchasers. The Banks also reported the change in the debt's
status to the three major credit reporting agencies. In turn,
those agencies updated the Debtors' credit reports to reflect the
debt as "charged off," indicating that the debt was severely
delinquent but still outstanding.
Within the next few years, both Debtors filed voluntary petitions
for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. At the
completion of the liquidation processes, the bankruptcy court
entered orders discharging the Debtors' debts. Under 11 U.S.C.
Section 524(a)(2), those orders operate as "injunctions" against
any future collection attempts.
Nevertheless, after the Debtors emerged from bankruptcy, their
credit reports continued to reflect their credit card debt as
charged off" without any mention of the bankruptcy discharge. The
Debtors assert that this was not a simple mistake, but rather an
attempt by the Banks to coerce them into repaying the debt
notwithstanding the bankruptcy court's orders. As a result, they,
purporting to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated
debtors, reopened their bankruptcy cases and initiated adversary
proceedings against the Banks, alleging that the Banks' refusal to
update their credit reports violated the bankruptcy court's orders
and the associated injunctions provided by section 524(a)(2). The
Debtors seek a contempt citation and damages.
In response, the Banks moved to enforce mandatory arbitration
clauses in the Debtors' credit card account agreements.
Ultimately, both the bankruptcy court and the district court
rejected the Banks' motions, finding that the dispute was not
arbitrable due to an inherent conflict between the Code and the
Federal Arbitration Act. The Banks appealed.
The Second Circuit is called upon to decide a narrow issue: whether
a dispute concerning the violation of a bankruptcy discharge order
is arbitrable. The Arbitration Act requires courts to strictly
enforce arbitration agreements. But like any statutory directive,
that mandate may be overridden by contrary congressional intent.
Such an intent may be deduced from the statute's text or
legislative history, or from an inherent conflict between
arbitration and the statute's underlying purposes.
The Second Circuit concludes that the Code's text offers little
guidance on Congress' intentions in the context of contempt
proceedings like those at issue. The Second Circuit further finds
that the legislative history of the relevant provisions is
similarly unenlightening. The Second Circuit is therefore left
with Anderson's conclusion that the Code is in "inherent conflict"
with arbitration. And under the Circuit's precedent, that is
enough to displace the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the Second
Circuit is bound to affirm the district court's judgment.
Having determined that Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. controls
the issue before the Court, the Second Circuit pauses only to offer
a few words concerning the scope of that conclusion. Specifically,
the Second Circuit has not endeavored to address whether a
nationwide class action is a permissible vehicle for adjudicating
thousands of contempt proceedings, and neither his decision nor
Anderson should be read as a tacit endorsement of such.
Indeed, permitting a bankruptcy court to adjudicate compliance with
another court's order appears to be in severe tension with
Anderson's reasoning. In particular, Anderson found that the Code
displaced the Arbitration Act, in part, because contempt
proceedings involve considerations that the issuing court is
uniquely positioned to assess. It seems that the rationale is
anathema to a nationwide class action.
More fundamentally, the Second Circuit questions whether a
bankruptcy court would even have jurisdiction to hold a creditor in
contempt of another court's order. Most circuits that have
considered the issue have rejected the notion. And those cases are
buttressed by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Taggart, which
made clear that the contempt powers provided under sections
524(a)(2) and 105(a) "bring with them the 'old soil' that has long
governed how courts enforce injunctions." So, while it affirms the
district court's judgment, the Second Circuit leaves for another
day the issue of class certification.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the order of the district
court, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion. The Debtors' motion for summary affirmance is denied as
moot.
A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's June 16, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/HuDdXX from Leagle.com.
GEORGE F. CARPINELLO -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- (Adam R. Shaw,
Anne M. Nardacci, on the brief), Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,
Albany, NY; Charles Juntikka, Charles Juntikka & Associates LLP,
New York, NY, for Appellees.
JOSEPH L. NOGA -- jnoga@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, New York,
NY; Matthew S. Hellman, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, for
Appellant GE Capital Retail Bank.
BENJAMIN R. NAGIN -- BNAGIN@SIDLEY.COM -- (Eamon P. Joyce, Jonathan
W. Muenz, Qais Ghafary, on the brief), Sidley Austin LLP, New York,
NY, for Appellants Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A.
GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Centre
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Good Samaritan
Society on behalf of residents and family members of residents at
the Good Samaritan Southgate Care Centre as a result of a COVID-19
outbreak at the facility.
The suit was filed on Aug. 12, at which point 23 people had died as
a result of COVID-19, 43 residents and 24 staff members had tested
positive. As of Sept. 4, 32 residents have died, 40 residents and
31 employees have recovered, and there are still seven active
resident and two active employee cases.
"We're essentially saying that the management of the Good Samaritan
society was negligent, so it's not so much on the staff, but it all
started with being ill prepared, not training staff to use PPE,
failing to provide adequate PPE, improper disposal, and I think the
main thing is the volume at which it spread at the Good Samaritan
Southgate Centre in Edmonton," said Basil Bansal, one of the
lawyers representing the residents in the suit.
"The latest numbers that I saw show that 78 residents impacted,
whether they were either diagnosed positive with COVID-19 or
whether they passed away, so the sheer volume. And the main problem
is the fact that they failed to properly isolate people who were
deemed positive with COVID-19."
Bansal said he couldn't comment at this time on the number of
people currently represented in the suit, saying the number is
growing daily.
"Like I said, 79 residents or their families qualify just on the
basis that they passed away from COVID-19, or you've been diagnosed
positive with COVID-19 and you're a resident of the Good Samaritan,
you qualify to be part of this," he said.
Bansal said the goal of the suit is to get compensation for
families, but also to bring change to the Southgate Care Centre,
and other long term care centres across the country.
He said the process could be a long one though, and the timeline
moving forward isn't the same as a normal class action lawsuit
because the pandemic is ongoing.
"The whole thing is, as we know with COVID-19, it's not an ending
process here. We're not out of the clear. So what a class action
allows us to do is add more plaintiffs should the situation
change."
The Good Samaritan Society sent a statement to CTV News Edmonton on
the topic of the lawsuit.
"We are in receipt of the statement of claim. Since this is
considered active litigation, I am sure you can appreciate that we
are not in a position to make any further comment." [GN]
GRUMA CORPORATION: Orozco Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as NORMA OROZCO, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and as a representative of other
aggrieved employees v. GRUMA CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
20CECG01702, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on September 10, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01290-AWI-EPG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wages,
failing to provide overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, failing to provide rest and meal periods or
provide corresponding premiums in lieu thereof, and failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.
Gruma Corporation is a manufacturer and distributor of food
products based in Irving, Texas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dan M. Forman, Esq.
Corey J. Cabral, Esq.
CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-6300
E-mail: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com
ccabral@cdflaborlaw.com
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Morrison Suit Transferred to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Thomas Morrison, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hartford
Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant, was transferred from the
Kern County Superior Court with the assigned Case No. BCV-20-101826
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on September 8, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01274-DAD-JLT.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.
Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company operates as an an insurance
company. The Company underwrites fire, marine, and casualty
insurance. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company serves customers
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (866) 598-5042
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
- and -
Meghan George, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: mgeorge@toddflaw.com
- and -
Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (888) 595-9111
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: twheeler@toddflaw.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (866) 598-5042
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ann Kathryn Johnston, Esq.
Johnston | Smith, ALC
1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 510
San Rafael, CA 94903
Tel: (415) 891-3321
Fax: (415) 891-3322
Email: ajohnston@jo-sm.com
- and -
Ted A. Smith, Esq.
Johnston | Smith, ALC
1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 510
San Rafael, CA 94903
Tel: (415) 891-3321
Fax: (415) 891-3322
Email: tsmith@jo-sm.com
HOUSTON ASTROS: Appeals Ruling in Wallach Suit to Texas App. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros Management, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
ADAM WALLACH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HOUSTON ASTROS, LLC and HOUSTON ASTROS MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 2020-10637, in the Texas District Court, Harris
County, 152nd Judicial District.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 24,
2020, Adam Wallach, who is an Astros season-ticket holder, filed
the lawsuit on behalf of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 full or partial
season ticket holders for "deceptively overcharging them for season
tickets while defendants and their employees and representatives
knowingly and surreptitiously engaged in a sign-stealing scheme in
violation of Major League Baseball Rules and Regulations, and
secretly put a deficient product on the field that could result
(and now has resulted) in severe penalties instituted by MLB,"
according to court documents.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed on Feb. 14, Wallach is
seeking to recover damages for "inappropriate increases" in the
season ticket prices, "diminished value of their personal seat
licenses," and an injunction prohibiting the Astros from raising
season ticket prices for at least two years.
The appellate case is captioned as Houston Astros, LLC and Houston
Astros Management, Inc. v. Adam Wallach, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Case No. 14-20-00616-CV, in the
Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that docketing
statement is due on September 23, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Adam Wallach, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Marion Reilly, Esq.
John Duff, Esq.
HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
marion@hmglawfirm.com
- and -
Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
Edison Plaza 350 Pine Street, Suite 700
Beaumont, TX 77701
Telephone: (409) 833-7700
Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD.
2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400
Beaumont, TX 77702
Telephone: (409) 838-0101
Facsimile: (409) 838-6780
E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros
Management, Inc. are represented by:
Reagan W. Simpson, Esq.
Bryce Callahan, Esq.
April Lynn Farris, Esq.
Grant Martinez, Esq.
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-8000
Facsimile: (713) 632-8002
E-mail: rsimpson@yettercoleman.com
bcallahan@yettercoleman.com
afarris@yettercoleman.com
gmartinez@yettercoleman.com
HUDSON VALLEY: Faces Taylor Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUDSON VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a New
York limited liability company, Case No. 7:20-cv-07329 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing to promote its services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that in September 2019, the Defendant sent a
text message to her cellular telephone number that constitutes
telemarketing since it encourages the future purchase or investment
in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling her a vehicle.
Specifically, the information contained in the text message
advertises the Defendant's prepaid gift cards available after a
test drive, which the Defendant sends to promote its business.
At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with
her express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system, the complaint says. The Defendant's
unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff actual harm,
including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
Hudson Valley Automotive Enterprises, L.L.C., is an automotive
dealership that sells vehicles to individuals and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
HUFFY CORPORATION: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huffy Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huffy Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-04114 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
The Huffy Corporation is a supplier of bicycles with headquarters
in Dayton, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
J2 GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against J2 Global, Inc. ("J2" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired J2 securities
between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jcom.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company' board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/jcom or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in J2 you
have until September 8, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
J2 GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in J2 Global, Inc. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:JCOM)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9066&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
Class Period: October 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020
Allegations against COG include that: (i) Cabot had inadequate
environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly
mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures;
(ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty
gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to
subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement,
as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot
continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal
liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
JOVIA FINANCIAL: Smith Seeks Refund of Improperly Charged Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JOVIA FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:20-cv-04237
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020), seeks to end the Defendant's abusive
and predatory practices and force it to refund all of improper fees
charged to consumers.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of state
consumer protection law and unjust enrichment.
When consumers open a checking account with the Defendant, they
have to enter into a standard contract written by the Defendant and
its lawyers. All the Defendant has to do is honor the contract it
wrote and complies with the terms it dictated, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Defendant promises its customers that if their account balance
drops too low to cover a particular "item," such as a check,
withdrawal, or service charge, the Defendant will charge the
customer a single $30 insufficient funds fee ("NSF Fee") or
overdraft fee ("OD Fee") per item. But as the Plaintiff and
consumers all over the country have discovered, the Defendant
doesn't abide by this promise, according to the complaint. Instead,
the Defendant routinely charges its customers multiple fees for the
same item, driving their account balances deeper into negative
territory.
The Defendant's customers have been injured by the Defendant's
improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from
their accounts in violation the Defendant's clear contractual
commitments, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Belinda Smith is a citizen and resident of Freeport, New
York, and holds a Jovia FCU checking account.
Jovia Financial Credit Union is engaged in the business of
providing retail Credit Union services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
KW PROPERTY: Turizo Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KW PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-61822-RS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 9,
2020), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
resulting from the Defendant's engagement in unlawful prerecorded
telemarketing to the Plaintiff and the class members.
On February 19, 2020, the Defendant placed two prerecorded message
calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number to solicit and
advertise its Soleste Bay Village condominium, according to the
complaint. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the
Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted with
marketing or promotional prerecorded messages on his cellular
telephone.
The Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded message caused him actual
harm, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the Plaintiff
alleges.
KW Property Management, LLC, operates and manages the Soleste Bay
Village luxury condominiums in Palmetto Bay, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by;
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 628-5793
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
LASH BELLE: Jiang Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HONG JIANG; XIANHUA LIN; YAN LIU, and YINGYING ZHAO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LASH BELLE
EYELASH EXTENSIONS INC. d/b/a LASH BELLE EYELASH EXTENSIONS; MISEON
KIM a.k.a MINA KIM; and LIHUA HAN a.k.a EVA HAN, Case 7:20-cv-06531
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as eyelash
stylists.
Lash Belle Eyelash Extensions Inc., d/b/a Lash Belle Eyelash
Extensions, offers eyelash extensions, facial wash, nail polish,
makeup, and foaming cleanser services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Dong, Esq.
DONG, ADAM'S LAW FIRM PLLC
3708 Main St, Suite 308
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (929) 269-5666
LEPRINO FOODS: Court Stays Bowles Wage Class Suit for One Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California stayed the case, STEVEN D. BOWLES,
Plaintiff, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00635-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
for one year.
In the putative class action lawsuit, an hourly-wage employee,
Plaintiff Steven Bowles alleges that his employers, the Defendants,
violated California's wage-and-hour laws. Specifically, Bowles
alleges that Leprino failed to pay Bowles and the other hourly-wage
employees -- i.e., the putative class -- their lawful wages, failed
to provide the putative class with proper meal periods during their
shifts, and failed to timely pay the putative class their wages.
Bowles is not the only employee to sue Leprino in the federal
district court for alleged wage-and-hour violations. In addition
to the lawsuit, there are multiple putative class action
wage-and-hour lawsuits pending against Leprino in the district, all
filed by other employees of Leprino. These other lawsuits include
the following, in chronological order from the earliest-filed to
the latest-filed: Finder v. Leprino Foods Company, Case No.
1:13-cv-2059-AWI-BAM; second, Perez v. Leprino Foods Company, Case
No. 1:17-cv-686-AWI, BAM; third, Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company,
Case No. 1:17-cv-796-AWI-BAM; fourth, Howell v. Leprino Foods
Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-1404-AWI-BAM; and fifth, Bates v. Leprino
Foods Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-700-AWI-BAM/
All five of the foregoing lawsuits were filed before the instant
lawsuit was filed, with the exception of the Bates lawsuit. All
five lawsuits, as with the instant lawsuit, are still pending in
the district, having not yet been fully adjudicated on the merits
or settled. All five lawsuits, as with this instant lawsuit, are
pending before the same undersigned district court judge. All five
lawsuits, as with the instant lawsuit, are putative class actions
-- but to date class certification has been granted only in the
Vasquez lawsuit, not in any of the other lawsuits.
Four of the five lawsuits -- namely, the Perez, Vasquez, Howell,
and Bates lawsuits -- concern alleged wage-and-hour violations
suffered by hourly employees at specific facilities operated by
Leprino. For example, the Perez lawsuit only concerns alleged
wage-and-hour violations suffered by hourly employees stationed at
Leprino's Lemoore East facility, whereas the Vasquez lawsuit only
concerns alleged wage-and-hour violations suffered by hourly
employees stationed at Leprino's Lemoore West facility. By
contrast, the Finder lawsuit and the instant lawsuit concern
alleged wage-and-hour violations suffered by Leprino's hourly
employees stationed at all facilities.
Now before the Court is Leprino's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
pursuant to the first-to-file rule and the claim-splitting doctrine
or, in the alternative, to stay the lawsuit pursuant to the Court's
inherent staying power. Leprino argues that the instant lawsuit
should be dismissed under the first-to-file rule. The rule allows
a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss the instant lawsuit
if a similar case with substantially similar issues and parties was
previously filed in another district court.
Judge Ishii holds that the Ninth Circuit recently faced the issue
of whether the first-to-file rule is inapplicable when the
earlier-filed lawsuit and the instant lawsuit are pending in the
same district. The Ninth Circuit expressly declined to resolve the
issue. Therefore, without further clarification from the Ninth
Circuit, the Judge adopts the reasoning from the Fifth Circuit, and
takes the position that the first-to-file rule is inapplicable when
the earlier-filed lawsuit is pending in the same district and
before the same judge as the instant lawsuit. Consequently, the
first-to-file rule is inapplicable in the case. For that reason,
Leprino's first-to-file rule argument is rejected.
Leprino argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed pursuant to the
anti-claim-splitting doctrine. The anti-claim-splitting doctrine
prevents a party from maintaining two separate actions involving
the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and
against the same defendant.
The Judge holds that the problem with Leprino's argument is that
there is no court-certified class action in the Finder lawsuit,
meaning there is no court-approved class representative in the
Finder lawsuit. In other words, at this point in time, the Judge
is not persuaded that Bowles is adequately represented in the
Finder lawsuit. While it is true that members of a certified class
are considered parties or in privity with a party for purposes of
the claim-splitting rule, the inverse proposition should be equally
true: namely, if a putative class has not been certified, then the
members of that putative class are not considered parties or in
privity with the putative class representative for purposes of
preclusion and the claim-splitting doctrine. Therefore, at this
time, the Judge concludes that Bowles is not similar to the parties
in the Finder lawsuit for purposes of claim-splitting.
Consequently, the anti-claim-splitting doctrine is inapplicable.
For that reason, Leprino's claim-splitting argument is rejected.
Leprino argues in the alternative that this lawsuit should be
stayed for one year pursuant to the Court's inherent staying power.
A federal district court has inherent power to stay a lawsuit
based on considerations of economy of time and effort for the
court, counsel, and litigants.
Because the interests weigh in favor of staying the lawsuit,
Leprino's motion to stay the lawsuit for one-year will be granted.
By first addressing the discovery, certification, and merits issues
in the earlier-filed lawsuits while the lawsuit is stayed, it is
likely that the parties and the Court will narrow and simplify the
similar factual and legal issues in this instant lawsuit, which in
turn will streamline the lawsuit once the stay is lifted. As for
Leprino's proposed one-year term for the stay, which Bowles agrees
to, the proposed term is neither indefinite nor will result in
undue delay.
Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied Leprino's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit pursuant to the first-to-file rule and the
anti-claim-splitting doctrine. The Judge granted Leprino's motion
to stay the lawsuit for one-year. The one-year period will
commence upon the date of the filing of the Order.
The parties will periodically file joint status reports in the
lawsuit every 90 days, beginning from the date of the filing of the
Order and continuing until the stay is lifted, and the joint status
reports should address the status of the earlier-filed lawsuits,
particularly discussing if and how the factual and legal
developments in the earlier-filed lawsuits should impact the
lawsuit.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/LxMs6v from Leagle.com.
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Solis Sues Over 5.52% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SOLIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS LTD., JAY WENJIE XIAO, and CRAIG
YAN ZENG, Case No. 3:20-cv-01562-SI (D. Ore., Sept. 9, 2020), seeks
to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded LexinFintech
securities between April 30, 2019, and August 24, 2020, inclusive.
On April 30, 2020, the Company filed its annual report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2019, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The 2019 20-F was signed by Defendant Xiao.
The 2019 20-F contained signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
certifications by Defendants Xiao and Zeng attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.
The Plaintiff alleges that the statements in the Company's annual
reports were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low
delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make
payments; (2) the Company's business model exposes shareholders to
enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance
sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the
Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to
Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
and (7) as a result, the Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On August 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report describing,
among other things, how the Company: (i) reports artificially low
delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make
payments; (ii) has a business model that exposes shareholders to
enormous losses; (iii) was still conducting direct peer to peer
lending despite claiming otherwise, (iv) lacked internal controls;
and (v) conducted undisclosed related party transactions.
On this news, shares of LexinFintech stock fell $0.47 per share or
5.52% to close at $8.04 per share on August 25, 2020.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, according to the complaint.
LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. purports to operate as an online
consumer finance platform for young professionals in the People's
Republic of China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
RANSOM, GILBERTSON, MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
8401 NE Halsey Street Suite 208
Portland, OR 97220
Telephone: (503) 226-3664
E-mail: rgmrl500@gmail.com
- and -
Phillip Kin, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (877) 590-0482
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Clark Files FCRA Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Michael G. Clark, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:20-cv-01920-SRN-BRT (D. Minn., Sept. 8, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed pursuant
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions is a global data and analytics company
that provides data and technology services, analytics, predictive
insights and fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G Albanese, Esq.
Berger & Montague, PC
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Tel: (612) 594-5999
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: jalbanese@bm.net
- and -
Michelle Drake, Esq.
Berger & Montague, P.C.
43 S.E. Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Tel: (612) 594-5933
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Rowan TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Rowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., a Massachusetts registered
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-11675 (D. Mass., Sept. 10, 2020),
seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making pre-recorded unsolicited calls to
consumers, as well as to consumers registered on the Do Not call
registry.
According to the complaint, Liberty Mutual places cold calls to
consumers in order to sell insurance coverage packages, including
placing prerecorded calls to consumers without their prior written
consent. On August 5, 2020, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited
telemarketing call from a call center agent, who identified that he
worked for BestInsuranceRates.com. The agent did not ask the
Plaintiff for his phone number or whether he would consent to
receive autodialed calls, text messages, or prerecorded calls, and
the Plaintiff did not provide his written consent for the Defendant
Liberty to send him autodialed calls, text messages, or prerecorded
calls.
The Defendant's unauthorized telephone calls harmed the Plaintiff
in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff Rowan is an East Rochester, New York resident.
Liberty Mutual provides insurance coverage to consumers that
includes vehicle coverage insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Campbell, Esq.
250 First Avenue, Unit 602
Charlestown, MA 02129
Phone: (617) 872-8652
Email: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
LLOYD'S LONDON: 15 Oz Fresh Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
15 OZ FRESH & HEALTHY FOOD LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON KNOWN
AS SYNDICATES AML 2001, WBC 5886, MMX 2010, and SKD 1897, Case No.
1:20-cv-23407-AHS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 17, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay insurance for losses due to Covid-19.
According to the complaint, to protect the restaurant owned by the
Plaintiff, and the income from operation of the restaurant, the
Plaintiff purchased a property insurance policy with policy number
B1180D190825/11941SP (the "Policy"). The Policy was issued and
underwritten by the Defendants.
Beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to suspend
business operations at the restaurant, as a result of COVID-19.
Related actions of civil authorities also prohibited access to and
occupancy of the restaurant. This suspension, which is ongoing, has
caused the Plaintiff to suffer significant losses and incur
significant expenses.
Under the Policy, the Defendants promised to cover these losses and
expenses, and are obligated to pay for them. But in blatant breach
of their contractual obligations, the Defendants have failed to pay
for these losses and expenses, the Plaintiff contends.
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, known as Syndicates AML 2001, has
issued and underwritten property insurance policy to the
Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven C. Marks, Esq.
Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
Lea P. Bucciero, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
Kristina M. Infante, Esq.
Pablo Rojas, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
One Southeast 3rd Ave., Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: smarks@podhurst.com
apodhurst@podhurst.com
lbucciero@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
kinfante@podhurst.com
projas@podhurst.com
LONDON LUXURY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LONDON LUXURY LLC, Case 1:20-cv-06519 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
17, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website--https://claritinbedding.com/--is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
London Luxury LLC manufactures and delivers home furnishings. The
Company offers bed, bath, and home products. London Luxury is
located in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
LONG BEACH HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Parra Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA PARRA, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. LONG BEACH HEALTHCARE CENTER LLC, a California limited
liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2QSTCV33197
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to timely pay all
wages owed; (3) failing to provide rest breaks; (4) failing to
provide compliant off-duty meal breaks; and (5) failing to provide
accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records. The
Defendants are, therefore, liable for civil penalties under the
Cal. Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA").
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a certified nursing
assistant from 2008 through December of 2019.
Long Beach Healthcare Center, LLC, is a 24-hour skilled nursing and
rehabilitation facility based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com
LUMINARY MEDIA: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Luminary Media, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Luminary Media, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04179 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020).
Luminary Media, LLC operates as a media company. The Company
provides podcast application that contains various digital audio
files. Luminary Media serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MDL 2641: Master Complaint Filed in Bard IVC Filters Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee as duly authorized
representative of all Plaintiffs in MDL 2641, filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona a Master Complaint for
Damages for Individual Claims against Defendants C.R. BARD, INC.
and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., in the consolidated case
captioned as IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries and/or
wrongful death damages suffered by an injured or deceased party or
parties as a direct and proximate result of an injured or deceased
party being implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous
Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by
Bard. The Plaintiffs' claims for damages all relate to Bard's
design, manufacture, sale, testing, marketing, labeling,
advertising, promotion, and/or distribution of Bard IVC Filters.
According to the Master Complaint, Bard's conduct, alleged
throughout this Master Complaint, was willful, wanton, and
undertaken with a conscious indifference and disregard to the
consequences that consumers of their products faced, including the
Plaintiffs and their decedents.
The Master Complaint does not necessarily include all claims
asserted in all of the actions transferred to this Court, and it is
not intended to consolidate for any purpose their separate claims,
the Plaintiffs assert. They add that the Master Complaint also does
not constitute a waiver or dismissal of any actions or claims
asserted in those individual actions, and no Plaintiff relinquishes
the right to amend their individual complaints to seek any
additional claims as discovery proceeds.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 812-5771
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and -
Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
E-mail: rwb@gknet.com
MDL 2836: Merck Appeals Ruling in Zetia Ezetimibe Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the multidistrict litigation styled In re ZETIA
(EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:18-md2836, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26,
2020, Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, (i) granted the
Merck Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
(DPPs)' and the Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints; and (ii)
granted in part and denied in part the Glenmark Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs)' and the Retailer
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints.
The matters before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by the
Merck Defendants and the Glenmark Defendants against the DPPs' and
the Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints.
The Merck Defendants' Motion to Dismiss New Claims and Allegations
in Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, to which the Glenmark Defendants joined in, seeks
dismissal of the DPPs' Amended Complaint to the extent DPPs seek to
recover under federal law for alleged overcharges on purchases made
from any entity other than Glenmark or Merck.
The Glenmark Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Retailer Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaints, seeks dismissal of the Retailer Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaints in their entirety because they are founded on
the existence of an implausible conspiracy involving Merck,
Glenmark, and Par that is not supported by well-pled factual
allegations, or, in the alternative, dismissal for lack of standing
insofar as they seek damages flowing from the Retailers Plaintiffs'
purchases of generic Zetia from Par, as well as dismissal of the
Retailer Plaintiffs' per se claim in Count One with prejudice
consistent with the Court's Aug. 9, 2019 opinion.
The appellate case is captioned as MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORPORATION; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP
SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK
GENERICS INC., USA Petitioners v. FWK HOLDINGS, LLC; CESAR
CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED; ROCHESTER DRUG COOPERATIVE, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI ON ITS OWN BEHALF
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; LAW ENFORCEMENT
HEALTH BENEFITS INC.; PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 30 HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND, ON BEHALF IF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49
HEALTH & WELFARE FUND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; WALGREEN CO.; THE KROGER CO.; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.;
HEB GROCERY COMPANY L.P.; TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THISE SIMILARLY SITUATED; THE UNIFORMED
FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION OF GREATER NEW YORK SECURITY BENEFIT
FUND; THE RETIRED FIREFIGHTERS' SECURITY BENEFIT FUND OF THE
UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; RITE AID CORPORATION; RITE AID
HDQTRS. CORP.; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; ALL END PAYER PLAINTIFFS
Respondents, Case No. 20-432, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Barcus Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Nurkamal Barcus,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-12234 (D.N.J., Sept. 2, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit filed pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management is a debt collection agency that helps
consumers pay off overdue debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
Horowitz Law, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Tel: (718) 705-8706
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ergas Asserts Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Matatiaou Ergas, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04205
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MIDLAND CREDIT: Rosner Files FDCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Toby Rosner, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04206 (E.D.
N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Kahn Swick Probes Officers and Directors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Mohawk
Industries, Inc.
On July 25, 2019, after a series of prior negative financial
revelations, the Company disclosed that sales for its Flooring NA
segment were down 7% due to "lower demand" for certain products
resulting in excess inventory that had impacted its sales and
margins.
Thereafter, the Company and certain of its executives were sued in
a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period regarding
improper revenue recognition, demand and inventory levels as well
as fraudulent channel stuffing, among other things, violating
federal securities laws. The case remains ongoing.
Then, on July 13, 2020, the Company disclosed it received subpoenas
from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
Georgia and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to
the above issues.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Mohawk's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Mohawk's shareholders
or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Mohawk shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mhk/ to learn more.
About Kahn Swick
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients - including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rudik Balks at $6.5 Billion Sale to J&J
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRESSA RUDIK v. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANE F. BARLOW,
BRUCE DOWNEY, GEORGES GEMAYEL, STEVEN C. GILMAN, DONNA ROY GROGAN,
JOSE-CARLOS GUTIERREZ-RAMOS, ELIZABETH STONER, and CRAIG A.
WHEELER, Case No. 1:20-cv-07313 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated for the Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the merger and acquisition
of Momenta Pharmaceuticals by affiliates of Johnson & Johnson in an
all-cash transaction, implying a fully-diluted equity value of $6.5
billion.
On Aug. 19, 2020, Momenta announced that it has entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement")
for Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") to acquire Momenta for $52.50 per
share in an all-cash transaction, implying a fully-diluted equity
value of $6.5 billion. The agreement was unanimously approved by
the Boards of Directors of both Momenta and Johnson & Johnson.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Vigor Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J, will merge with
Momenta, with Momenta continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J (the "Proposed Transaction").
According to the complaint, the Board of Directors of Momenta
allegedly failed to adequately disclose material information when
they filed an incomplete and materially misleading Recommendation
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September
2, 2020; specifically, regarding the financial analyses and opinion
of Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Centerview Partners LLC concerning
the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff owns Momenta common stock. The Plaintiff asserts that
the disclosure of the material information omitted is important to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated stockholders in deciding
whether to tender their shares in favor of the proposed
transaction.
Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer
packaged goods.
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company with a
validated innovative scientific platform focused on discovering and
developing novel therapeutics to treat rare, immune-mediated
diseases. Jane F. Barlow, Bruce Downey, Georges Gemayel, Steven C.
Gilman, Donna Roy Grogan, Jose-Carlos Gutierrez-Ramos, Elizabeth
Stoner and Craig A. Wheeler have been directors of Momenta at all
times during the relevant time period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 493-9780
Fax: (516) 280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com
MULHOLLAND TENNIS: Gallo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR GALLO, an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. MULHOLLAND TENNIS CLUB and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. 20STCV34581 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 10, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of Private Attorneys
General Act of California Labor Code, including failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and others minimum wages and overtime
pay.
According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide
meal and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof, to
keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements,
to pay all wages earned at least twice during each calendar month,
and to pay all final wages owed.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server and
bartender from 1989 until November 19, 2019.
Mulholland Tennis Club is a private member-owned club in Los
Angeles, California, that offers various accommodations and
services, including tennis courts, banquet services, swimming pool,
hot tub, saunas, and dining and bar services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Daniel B. Marin-Finn, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
dfinn@haineslawgroup.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nguyen Suit Transferred to California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Trung Q. Nguyen and Sally H. Nguyen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Nationstar Mortgage L.L.C., doing business as: Mr.
Cooper, Defendant, Nationstar Mortgage L.L.C., Counter-Claimant,
Sally H. Nguyen and Trung Q. Nguyen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Counter Defendants, was transferred
from California Southern with the assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01227
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on September 2, 2020, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-06204-DMR.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers
mortgage services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Girard Sharp LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: (415) 981-4800
Fax: (415) 981-4846
Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Genevieve Rae Walser-Jolly, Esq.
Severson Werson
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel: (949) 442-7110
Fax: (949) 442-7118
Email: grw@severson.com
NATIONWIDE REAL: Valdes Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Valdes, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONWIDE REAL ESTATE EXECUTIVES, INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01734 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2020), is
brought to stop the Defendant from directing its realtors to
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without their consent
and to consumers whose phone numbers are registered on the National
Do Not Call registry.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not looking to
purchase or sell a property. The Plaintiff does not have a prior
business relationship with the Defendant and never consented to
calls from any NREE agents. Simply put, the Defendant did not
obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written consent to place any
solicitation telephone calls to him through autodialed phone
calls.
The unauthorized telephone calls from the Defendant harmed the
Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy, according to the complaint. The calls also disturbed the
Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his cellular phone, in addition to
the wear and tear on the phone's hardware (including the phone's
battery) and the consumption of memory on the phone.
Plaintiff Jorge Valdes is a resident of Tustin, California.
NREE is an independently-owned California-based real estate agency
that assists consumers in buying and purchasing property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Matos in Gulino Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated July 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2895, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Rosa Matos is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEW YORK: Drayton FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY DRAYTON, ROBERT LEWIS,
and SANTOS SEDA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK and the NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-10138-ALC-SDA (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this case as a
collective action and permitting court-supervised notification to
putative collective members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The lawsuit alleges overtime wage violation.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that’s among the world’s major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. The New York City Department of
Education is the department of the government of New York City that
manages the city's public school system. The City School District
of the City of New York is the largest school system in the United
States, with over 1.1 million students taught in more than 1,800
separate schools.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify collective action is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FY7pic at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 10 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 10 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. 20-800;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-803;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-807;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-808;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-809;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-810;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-811;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-813;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-814; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 20-816.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Mercedes Done, Carlos Becerril, Celeste
Alvarez, Georgina Feliz, Luretha Lassiter, Lydia Roman, Karen
Mensah, Cynthia Alvarado, Millicent Eke and Clarence McNatt 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
O.J. SMITH: Certification of NCWHA & AWPA Classes Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ, ISAAC
GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, VICTORINO FELIX ANTONIO, JUAN JAVIER VARELA
CUELLAR, RUBEN DOMINGUEZ ANTONIO, RIGOBERTO CARTERAS JARDON, JORGE
BAUTISTA SABINO, EMMANUEL CRUZ RIVERA, CELSO GONZALEZ TREJO, ERIC
JACINTO WENCES VASQUEZ, MARTIN NELSON WENCES VASQUEZ, PORFIRIO
BAUTISTA CRUZ, ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, JOSE ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ
CRUZ, SIXTO HERNANDEZ BUENO, VIRGINIO ANGELES GONZALEZ, TIBURCIO
ANTONIO MANUEL, and HUMBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. O.J. SMITH
FARMS, INC., BOSEMAN FARMS, INC., GREENLEAF NURSERY CO., SBHLP,
INC., JOEL M. BOSEMAN, JEAN J. BOSEMAN, PEYTON G. MCDANIEL, SANDRA
W. MCDANIEL, and SALVADOR BARAJAS, Case No. 5:20-cv-00086-FL
(E.D.N.C.), the Parties jointly move the Court for an order
certifying two plaintiff classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of settlement between
Plaintiffs and Defendants. The proposed classes include one class
pursuant to the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), and one
class pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Protection Act ("AWPA").
In particular, the parties request the Court to certify:
a class represented by all Plaintiffs other than Tiburcio
Antonio Manuel (for 2018 and 2019) and Victorino Felix
Antonio (for 2018), referred to as the "AWPA Class", defined
as:
"all migrant or seasonal agricultural workers (as the
terms "migrant agricultural worker" and "seasonal
agricultural worker" are defined in 29 U.S.C. sections
1802(8) and 1802(10) and 29 C.F.R. sections 500.20(p) and
500.20(r)) who were allegedly jointly employed by SBHLP, Inc.
and/or Salvador Barajas on one hand and by Boseman Farms,
Joel M. Boseman and/or Jean J. Boseman on the other to
perform temporary or seasonal work in agriculture that was
off their H-2A contract with SBHLP, Inc. in 2018 and/or
2019."; and
a class represented by all Plaintiffs, referred to as the
"NCWHA Class", defined as:
"all H-2A visa workers who were allegedly jointly employed by
SBHLP, Inc. and/or Salvador Barajas on one hand and by
Boseman Farms, Joel M. Boseman and/or Jean J. Boseman on the
other who were not paid all wages when due on their regular
payday at any time in 2018 and/or 2019."
Boseman operates as a agricultural service company.
A copy of the joint motion for class certification is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hOEUR8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Boseman Farms, Inc., Joel M. Bosman and Jean J.
Boseman, are:
Attorney for Plaintiffs are:
Robert J. Willis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
P.O. Box 1828
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Telephone: (919) 821-9031
Facsimile: (919) 821-1763
E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com
- and -
F. Marshall Wall, Esq.
Laura E. Dean, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP
Post Office Box 27808
Raleigh, NC 27611-7808
Telephone: (919) 828-5100
Facsimile: (919) 828-2277
E-mail: mwall@cshlaw.com
ldean@cshlaw.com
OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES: Smith Sues Over Collection of Illegal Liens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AND KURU SMITH, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals v. OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01562-SI (D. Md., Sept. 9, 2020), arises out of the
Defendant's filing and attempted collection of unlawful liens in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act.
The lawsuit challenges the Defendant's alleged practice of using
finite liens to bootstrap a purported security interest in years'
worth of undefined and unpredictable future interest, fees, and
attorneys' fees that ultimately dwarf the original lien. Such
"perpetual liens" strip the Plaintiffs and other property owners of
their due process rights by depriving them of any meaningful notice
or opportunity to challenge the liens under the Maryland Contract
Lien Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs purchased certain
property rights and a condominium unit in Elkridge, Maryland, on
February 28, 2005, as their primary residence and have continuously
used it for that purpose. Through the Plaintiffs' purchase of the
Property, they entered into a contract with Montgomery Woods
embodied in the community's Declaration of Covenants and Bylaws,
which provided the Plaintiffs' payment of regular assessments, and
also placed limits on (a) the amounts that Montgomery Woods could
assess to the Plaintiffs, (b) the methods and manner of collection,
and (c) the amounts that could be charged.
In October 2012, the Plaintiffs fell behind on condominium
assessment payments. The Defendant allegedly recorded a lien
against the Property on behalf of Montgomery Woods purported to
cover the period from October 2012 through December 2013 amounting
to $2,537.71. The Plaintiffs have paid more than the face value of
the lien but the Defendant refuses to release the 2013 lien,
claiming that it secures monies that the lien does not secure. The
Defendant has sent multiple collection letters seeking to collect
assessments from 2016 going forward, late fees, interest, and
thousands of dollars in attorney's fees, for a total exceeding
$30,000.
As a result of the Defendant's impermissible attempts to collect
debt not actually owed, that is time-barred, and that is not
secured by the Lien, the Plaintiffs assert that they have been
forced to pay significant amounts of attorney's fees and other
wrongful charges.
Oliveri & Associates, LLC, is an Annapolis, Maryland-based law firm
whose primary areas of practice include condominium/homeowner
associations, real property, business administration, collections,
commercial, construction, and general litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Courtney L. Weiner, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 827-9980
E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth L. Morris, Esq.
ADAMS, MORRIS AND SESSING
12850 Middlebrook Road, Suite 308
Germantown, MD 20874
Telephone: (301) 637-0143
E-mail: lee@amslawgroup.com
- and -
Matthew D. Skipper, Esq.
Jeffrey Kahntroff, Esq.
SKIPPER LAW, LLC
2127 Espey Court, Suite 100
Crofton, MD 21114
Telephone: (410) 919-2121
Facsimile: (410) 919-2111
E-mail: matt@skipperlawllc.com
ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) investors to submit
their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed
and certain investors may have valuable claims.
Class Period: May 9, 2018 - Aug. 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 19, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/OSPN
Contact An Attorney Now: OSPN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
OneSpan Inc. (OSPN) Securities Class Action:
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures over financial reporting; (ii)
as a result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain
contracts with customers involving software licenses in its
financial statements spread out over the first quarter of 2018 to
the first quarter of 2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably
likely that the Company would eventually have to delay one or more
scheduled earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial
filings with the SEC; (iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts
of errors in its financial statements; and (v) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial results and reputation.
The market allegedly began to learn the truth on Aug. 4, 2020, when
OneSpan postponed its Q2 2020 earnings release and conference call
by 1 week, blaming the delay on prior period revenue recognition
problems relating to certain software license contracts.
Then, according to the complaint, on Aug. 11, 2020, OneSpan (1)
announced it would not timely file its Q2 2020 financial statements
on Form 10-Q with the SEC, (2) revealed the revenue recognition
problems stretched from Q1 2018 through Q1 2019, (3) reported that
same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined, and (4) withdrew
its FY 2020 earnings guidance.
On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $12.36 per share,
or nearly 40%.
Most recently, on Aug. 14, 2020, the company filed its Form 10-Q
revealing that it (1) overstated its current contract assets for
the fiscal year-ended Dec. 31, 2019 by about 34%, and (2)
understated net losses for the three and six months ended June 30,
2019.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving OneSpan
intentionally cooked its books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a OneSpan investor, discuss your legal rights with
Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
OneSpan should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email OSPN@hbsslaw.com.
# # #
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 is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]
ONESPAN INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds October 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who acquired
OneSpan, Inc. ("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN)
securities during the period from May 9, 2018, and August 11, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 19, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On August 4, 2020, during
pre-market hours, OneSpan postponed its second-quarter 2020
earnings release and conference call by one week, attributing the
delay to prior period revenue recognition problems relating to
certain software license contracts spread out over the quarters
from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020.
OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract assets that
originated from a portion of these contracts in prior periods were
not properly accounted for in subsequent periods, which caused
overstatements of revenue." On this news, OneSpan's common share
price fell $0.46 per share, or 1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share
on August 4, 2020. Then, on August 11, 2020, during after-market
hours, OneSpan disclosed that it would not timely file its
quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, with the SEC;
reported that same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined;
and withdrew its full-year 2020 earnings guidance, which the
Company had affirmed one quarter earlier. On this news, OneSpan's
common share price fell $12.36 per share, or 39.62%, to close at
$18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.
If you acquired OneSpan 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. [GN]
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in SEPTA Suit to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Orrstown Financial Services Inc., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled SEPTA v.
Orrstown Financial Services In, et al., Case No. 1-12-cv-00993, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 1,
2020, the Defendants in a class action initiated by The
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) intend
to appeal a trial court ruling that granted SEPTA leave to file a
third amended complaint.
On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, Orrstown Bank and certain current and former directors
and executive officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for
appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24,
2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead
Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.
On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK
and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case
on December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the
previously-dismissed 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown
Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants.
Under the Court-ordered briefing schedule, the Defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24,
2020. SEPTA's oppositions were due May 29, 2020, and the
Defendants' reply briefs were due June 19, 2020.
On February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b) asking the Court to certify its February 14, 2020
Order for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. SEPTA filed its brief in opposition on April 21, 2020. The
Defendants' reply briefs were due May 11, 2020.
The appellate case is captioned as SEPTA v. Orrstown Financial
Services In, et al., Case No. 20-2829, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
is represented by:
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS
361 West Lancaster Avenue
One Haverford Centre
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
E-mail: nick@chimicles.com
kimdonaldson@chimicles.com
benjohns@chimicles.com
timothyMathews@chimicles.com
- and -
Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS
222 Delaware Avenue, 11th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 656-2500
E-mail: tiffanycramer@chimicles.com
Defendants-Petitioners ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES INC, ORRSTOWN
BANK, ANTHONY F. CEDDIA, JEFFREY W. COY, MARK K. KELLER, ANDREA
PUGH, THOMAS R. QUINN, JR., GREGORY A. ROSENBERRY, KENNETH F.
SHOEMAKER, GLENN W. SNOKE, JOHN S. WARD, JOEL R. ZULLINGER, BRADLEY
S. EVERLY, JEFFREY W EMBLY, SMITH ELLIOTT KEARNS & CO, SANDLER
O'NEILL & PARTNERS LP, and JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC are
represented by:
David J. Creagan, Esq.
David E. Edwards, Esq.
Justin K. Fortescue, Esq.
WHITE & WILLIAMS
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 864-7032
E-mail: creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
edwardsd@whiteandwilliams.com
fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
- and -
Seth L. Laver, Esq.
Michael P. Luongo, Esq.
Jonathan S. Ziss, Esq.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA
1700 Market Street, Suite 1418
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 519-6852
E-mail: slaver@goldbergsegalla.com
mluongo@goldbergsegalla.com
jziss@goldbergsegalla.com
- and -
Adam D. Gold, Esq.
Bradley R. Wilson, Esq.
WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 403-1000
E-mail: BRWilson@wlrk.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Monhait, Esq.
Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr., Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1650 Market Street, One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-2084
E-mail: jmonhait@cozen.com
twilkinson@cozen.com
PERFECT BAR: Paguada Suit Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Perfect Bar, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Dilenia
Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Perfect Bar, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07161
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
Perfect Bar, LLC is located in San Diego, CA, United States and is
part of the Food Wholesalers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ:PPC)
Investors Affected : February 9, 2017 - June 3, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its executives
had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to fix prices
and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and continuing through
at least early 2017; (2) the Company received competitive
advantages, which persisted during the Class Period, from its
anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pilgrims-pride-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=9072&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Portland General Electric Company ("PGE" or
the "Company") (NYSE: POR) of the November 2, 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 PGE stock or options between April 24, 2020 and
August 24, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here:www.faruqilaw.com/POR. 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
torgonnello@faruqilaw.com.
Richard Gonnello, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292
(212) 983-9330
E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of all those who purchased Portland
General Electric securities between April 24, 2020 and August 24,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The case, Hessell v. Portland General
Electric Company, et al., No. 3:20-cv-01523 was filed on September
3, 2020 and has been assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon.
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
PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading
practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during
2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second
quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
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 August 24, 2020, after the market closed, PGE announced that it
had incurred losses of $ 127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE
further stated that "PGE personnel entered into a number of energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant
exposure to the Company." In addition, PGE announced that it had
formed a Special Committee "to review the energy trading that led
to the losses and the Company' s procedures and controls related to
the trading."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell from $41.96 per share
on August 24, 2020 to $38.45 per share on August 25, 2020: a $3.51
or 8.37% drop.
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 Portland General Electric's conduct to contact the firm,
including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
PORTLAND GENERAL: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Portland General Electric Company
("PGE" or "the Company") (NYSE: POR) investors that acquired
securities between April 24, 2020 and August 24, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.
The investigation focuses on whether the Company misled investors
regarding the Company's exposure to trading risks and proper
oversight trading limits. On August 24, 2020, after the market
closed, Portland General Electric announced that it had incurred
losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020 due to certain "energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant
exposure to the Company." In addition, Portland General Electric
announced that it had formed a Special Committee "to review the
energy trading that led to the losses and the Company's procedures
and controls related to the trading."
On this news, the Company's share price fell significantly.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
Tel No: 310-692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]
PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Firm Continues to Investigate Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues its
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR)
resulting from allegations that Portland General Electric may have
issued materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
On August 24, 2020, after the market closed, Portland General
Electric announced that it had incurred losses of $127 million as
of August 24, 2020 due to certain "energy trades during 2020, with
increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into
the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the
Company." In addition, Portland General Electric announced that it
had formed a Special Committee "to review the energy trading that
led to the losses and the Company's procedures and controls related
to the trading."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.80, or 11%, over
the next two trading days to close at $37.16 on August 26, 2020.
Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Portland General Electric's investors. If you
purchased shares of Portland General Electric, please visit the
firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1938.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. [GN]
PROGENITY INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Oct. 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
October 27, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Progenity,
Inc. ("Progenity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PROG) common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO")
conducted in June 2020.
Investors suffering losses on their Progenity investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
In June 2020, Progenity completed its IPO, in which it
approximately 6.7 million shares for $15.00 per share.
On August 13, 2020, Progenity announced its second quarter 2020
results in a press release. Therein, the Company disclosed that
"second-quarter revenues reflected a $10.3 million accrual for
refunds to government payors," related to a settlement with the
U.S. Department of Justice and several states to resolve claims
that Progenity had fraudulently billed federal healthcare programs
for prenatal tests and provided kickbacks to physicians to induce
them to order Progenity tests for their patients.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.24, or 14%, to
close at $7.71 per share on August 14, 2020.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Progenity had overbilled
government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and,
thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash
flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided
in the Registration Statement; (2) that Progenity would need to
refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same
quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its
quarterly results; and (3) that Progenity was suffering from
accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with
respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product
pricing.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Progenity common stock, you
may move the Court no later than October 27, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel: 215-638-4847
888-638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Connors Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SHAUNA CONNORS, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20CH00000492, was removed from the
Illinois Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on September 10, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05348 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of its
insurance policies by failing to pay its insureds, including the
Plaintiff, mandatory title and transfer fees in connection with the
adjustment of total loss vehicle claims.
Progressive Universal Insurance Company provides property and
casualty insurance services based in Mayfield Village, Ohio.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher T. Gardino, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6950
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 624-6300
Facsimile: (312) 624-6321
E-mail: christopher.gardino@tuckerellis.com
- and –
Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Telephone: (216) 592-5000
Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
E-mail: karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com
PROMETRIC LLC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Prometric LLC, failed to reimburse employees for required business
expenses, among other allegations. The Prometric LLC class action
lawsuit, Case No. 20STCV29967, is currently pending in the Los
Angeles Superior Court of the State of California.
According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
Prometric LLC allegedly failed to reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF
and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses
incurred as a direct consequence of discharging their duties on
behalf of DEFENDANT. These expenses include, but are not limited
to, the use of personal cellular phones. PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also, from time to time, unable to
take off-duty meal breaks or rest periods, which has allegedly
resulted in DEFENDANT's failure to pay full wages.
The complaint further alleges Prometric LLC committed acts of
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec 17200, et seq. (the
"UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which
failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and rest
periods by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a
result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to
meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate
and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor
Code.
If you would like to know more about the Prometric LLC lawsuit,
please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling (800)
568-8020.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys. [GN]
PSI LLC: Fails to Pay Operators' Overtime Wages, Gaurmer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GAURMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PSI LLC, d/b/a PSI ENERGY PRODUCTION SERVICES, Case
1:20-cv-02463-SKC (D. Colo., Aug. 17, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Gaurmer was employed by the Defendant as flowback
operator.
PSI LLC, d/b/a PSI Energy Production Services, provides production
testing and flowback operation in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
QUAINT OAK: Mahoney Sues in E.D. Penn. Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quaint Oak Bancorp,
Inc. The case is captioned as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Quaint Oak Bancorp, Inc., Case
No. 2:20-cv-04248-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Aug. 28, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K.
Pratter.
Quaint Oak Bancorp, Inc., is a Southampton, Pennsylvania-based
savings and loan holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com
RAJA 786: Chowdhury Sues Over Unpaid Tips, Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMAD CHOWDHURY, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. RAJA 786 FOOD INC. and RAJA S. ALI, Case No.
1:20-cv-04235 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other
restaurant workers appropriate tips, minimum wages, and overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Defendants have also failed to provide wage notices and wage
statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff says he was employed by the Defendants at their
Domino's Pizza restaurant from March until June 2020, helping run
the store through the worst of the pandemic.
Raja 786 Food Inc. owns and operates a Domino's Pizza franchise
located at the corner of Kings Highway and Rockaway Parkway in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
48 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 524-6001
E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
ag@g-s-law.com
REEDS JEWELERS: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Reeds Jewelers, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Reeds Jewelers, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07348 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020).
Reeds Jewelers is a U.S. retail jewelry company founded in 1946 by
Bill and Roberta Zimmer in Wilmington, North Carolina.[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
SAKS & COMPANY: Esposito Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAXWELL ESPOSITO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
other aggrieved employees v. SAKS & COMPANY LLC and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 20SMCV01252 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 10,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of Private
Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code, including failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated sales
associates minimum wages and overtime pay at the correct regular
rate of pay.
According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide
meal and rest periods, to keep accurate payroll records and provide
itemized wage statements, to pay all wages earned and all wages
owed upon termination or resignation, to provide basic information
at the time of hiring and when changes occur to employment, and to
reimburse business-related expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate
from January 9, 2018, to February 8, 2020.
Saks & Company LLC operates chain of retail department stores, with
its principal place of business located at 225 Liberty Street, in
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LA WYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
SCANA CORP: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Metzler Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Scana Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled In re: SCANA CORPORATION PUBLIC
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00505-MBS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on February 8,
2018, a purported class action was filed against Gregory Aliff,
James Bennett, John Cecil, Sharon Decker, Maybank Hagood, Lynne
Miller, James Roquemore, Maceo Sloan, Alfredo Trujillo, Dominion
Energy, and Sedona by plaintiffs Metzler Asset Management GmbH and
Joseph Heinz in the Richland County Court.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy and Sedona aided and
abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to
enjoin and/or rescind the proposed merger, as well as unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court
deems proper.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: SCANA CORPORATION PUBLIC
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1954, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on October 19, 2020; and
-- Response Brief is due on November 18, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and CITY OF WARREN
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
885 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022-0000
Telephone: (212) 308-5888
E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
- and -
Graham Lee Newman, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA
1410 Laurel Street
P. O. Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
E-mail: gln@harpootlianlaw.com
Defendant-Appellant SCANA CORPORATION is represented by:
Benjamin Palmer Carlton, Esq.
Steven J. Pugh, Esq.
RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA
P. O. Drawer 7788
Columbia, SC 29202-0000
Telephone: (803) 771-4400
E-mail: bcarlton@richardsonplowden.com
spugh@richardsonplowden.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
Benjamin B. Watson, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: (404) 572-4673
E-mail: jchally@kslaw.com
bwatson@kslaw.com
SCHENECTADY, NY: Brian Pommer Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Schenectady.
The case is styled as Schenectady Police Benevolent Association,
o/b/o of Brian Pommer and on behalf of all other similarly situated
members of the Schenectady PBA; and Brian Pommer, Plaintiff v. City
of Schenectady, Michael C. Eidens, in his official capacity as
public Safety Commissioner for the City of Schenectady, City of
Schenectady and City of Schenectady Police Department, Defendants,
Case No. 1411/2020 (N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020).
The docket states the type of the lawsuit as under Article 78.
Schenectady is a city in Schenectady County, New York, United
States, of which it is the county seat. As of the 2010 census, the
city had a population of 66,135. The name "Schenectady" is derived
from the Mohawk word skahnehtati, meaning "beyond the pines".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'She
40 Beaver ST.
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 432-7511
SENEX LAW: Lord Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senex Law, P.C. The
case is styled as Jennifer Lord, Ebony Reddicks and Toniraye Moss,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Senex Law, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-00541-GEC (W.D. Va., Sept. 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Senex Law, P.C. is a debt collection mill representing landlords
across the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brenda Erin Castaneda, Esq.
Legal Aid Justice Center
1000 Preston Ave., Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Tel: (434) 977-0553
Fax: 977-0558
Email: brenda@justice4all.org
- and -
Caroline Frances Klosko, Esq.
Legal Aid Justice Center
1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Tel: (434) 529-1841
Email: carrie@justice4all.org
- and -
David Dennis Beidler, Esq.
Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley, Suite 200
132 Campbell Avenue SW
Roanoke, VA 24011-1206
Tel: (540) 344-2088
Fax: 342-3064
Email: david@lasrv.org
- and -
Edward Kyle McNew, Esq.
Michie Hamlett PLLC
500 Court Square, Suite 300
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Tel: (434) 951-7200
Fax: (434) 951-7243
Email: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com
- and -
Elaine Poon, Esq.
Legal Aid Justice Center
1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Tel: (434) 529-1816
Fax: (434) 997-0558
Email: elaine@justice4all.org
- and -
Kelly Poff Salzmann, Esq.
Legal Aid Justice Center
6066 Leesburg Pike Suite 520
Falls Church, VA 22041
Tel: (703) 778-3450
Fax: (703) 778-3454
Email: kelly@justice4all.org
- and -
Michael Bryan Slaughter, Esq.
Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C.
500 Court Square, Suite 300
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Tel: (434) 951-7200
Fax: (434) 951-7218
Email: bslaughter@michiehamlett.com
- and -
Nady Leticia Peralta, Esq.
Legal Aid Justice Center
6066 Leesburg Pike Suite 520
Falls Church, VA 22041
Tel: (703) 778-3450
Fax: (703) 778-3454
Email: nady@justice4all.org
SETERUS INC: Second Amended Fordham Suit Under FDCPA Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUDITH FORDHAM, DANI GANNON, and WILLIAM GANNON, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SETERUS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-13808-BRM-LHG
(D. N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
The matter arises out of Seterus' attempt to collect a debt, an
attempt the Plaintiffs claim violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Judith Fordham is a resident of Monmouth
County, New Jersey, while the Gannons are residents of Burlington
County, New Jersey. The Plaintiffs claim to be "Consumers" as that
term is defined by the FDCPA, meaning a natural person obligated or
allegedly obligated to pay any debt.
Seterus was a corporation organized under Delaware law with a
principal place of business in North Carolina until it was
purchased in February 2019 by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company. Seterus was a debt collector as that
term is defined by FDCPA.
Fordham owns a home in Howell, New Jersey, that is the security for
the loan used to buy that home; the mortgage is held by Federal
National Mortgage Association. On March 1, 2015, Fordham's loan,
then in default, was transferred to Seterus for servicing. The
Gannons own a home in Cinnaminson, New Jersey, that is the security
for a loan used to buy the house; the mortgage is owned, backed or
"controlled" by Fannie Mae. On Sept. 11, 2015, their loan, then in
default, was transferred to Seterus for servicing.
Seterus' practice was to send homeowners/borrowers in New Jersey a
form letter, titled "Notice of Intent to Foreclose," when their
accounts became more than 45 days delinquent. Since the
Plaintiffs' accounts were transferred, Seterus "has alleged" the
Plaintiffs were more than 45 days delinquent on their mortgage, and
it sent them numerous versions of a form letter they call "the New
Jersey Final Letters." It is in keeping with Seterus' practice of
sending homeowners in New Jersey the form letter when their
accounts were more than 45 days delinquent. The New Jersey Final
Letter identifies Seterus as a debt collector.
The Plaintiffs allege the New Jersey Final Letters sent to them
falsely suggested Seterus would commence foreclosure proceedings
absent full payment, when in reality it was the corporate policy of
Seterus and Fannie Mae, as well as set forth in RESPA, not to
initiate foreclosure until a loan was 120 days delinquent. They
contend their Fannie Mae debts meet the definition of that term in
the FDCPA. The Plaintiffs claim Seterus is a creditor as defined
by the Act. They further claim they and all prospective members of
the class are "consumers," as defined by the FDCPA. The Plaintiffs
argue that because RESPA and the corporate policies of Seterus and
Fannie Mae require a 120-day default, Seterus' New Jersey Final
Letter violates the FDCPA.
On Sept. 12, 2018, Fordham filed a Complaint alleging Seterus
violated the FDCPA and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
seeking class-action status. On Dec. 3, 2018, Fordham filed an
Amended Complaint alleging same. Seterus moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in December 2018. The Court granted that Motion
in July 2019.
In August 2019, Fordham filed the Second Amended Complaint, adding
the Gannons as Plaintiffs. In September 2019, Seterus and
Nationstar Mortgage, in lieu of filing an Answer, filed the Motion
to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion on
Nov. 4, 2019.
The Plaintiffs allege Seterus violated four provisions of the
FDCPA, including 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e; Section 1692e(5); Section
1692e(10); and Section 1692f. Broadly, they allege Seterus
violated these FDCPA provisions in that Seterus used false
representations and/or deceptive means in the form of untimely
threats to foreclose on homeowners, though Seterus knew it had no
intention of doing so and that the law wouldn't allow it to do so.
Seterus argues the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed as
time-barred because the claims therein do not relate back to the
original Complaint and no longer are within the one-year statute of
limitations for FDCPA allegations. It contends that, even if the
Second Amended Complaint does relate back, dismissal is required
because it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Seterus further argues the foreclosure letters are not actionable
because they were sent pursuant to New Jersey's Fair Foreclosure
Act. Finally, Seterus says the Second Amended Complaint should be
dismissed as to Fordham individually because the failure to attach
the foreclosure letter she allegedly received means she fails to
meet Rule 8 pleading standards and cannot establish an injury in
fact, denying her Article III standing.
The Plaintiffs counter that their claims are not barred by the
statute of limitations because the Second Amended Complaint relates
back to the original Complaint.
While the Gannons' claim appears at the least to arise out of the
same conduct as that alleged by Fordham against Seterus, the
addition of the Gannons fails the notice element. Seterus did not
have notice it would have to defend against the Gannons' claims
until after the Second Amended Complaint was filed, which was more
than 350 days after the filing of the original Complaint, well
outside the 120-day period provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Accordingly, Judge Martinotti concludes the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as to the Gannons' claims is
granted.
The Judge turns to a determination about the sufficiency of
substance of Fordham's claims in the Second Amended Complaint. He
opines that the central theme of Fordham's allegations is that
Seterus violated the FDCPA because it threatened to take actions it
could not take until Fordham was in default for at least 120 days.
Judge Martinotti cannot determine whether that statement is
misleading or false because Fordham never states how long she had
been in default, if at all, when she received the letters she
alleges. In other words, because Fordham has not alleged
sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether Seterus
threatened to take actions either illegal or against its own
policies, the Judge must reiterate the holding from the dismissal
of the Amended Complaint, that to ascertain whether Seterus'
letters violate the FDCPA, the Court must analyze the actual
language of the letters, which it cannot do at this time.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Fordham's Second
Amended Complaint is granted, Judge Martinotti rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Orhbae from Leagle.com.
SIXTHREEZERO BICYCLE: Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SixThreeZero Bicycle Company, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SixThreeZero Bicycle
Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04112-JMA-AYS (E.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 2, 2020).
Sixthreezero is a popular cycling company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
SNAK KING CORP: Paguada Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Snak-King Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Dilenia
Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Snak-King Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07166
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
Snak King is a privately owned snack food manufacturer
headquartered in Industry, California. Snak King manufactures
potato chips, tortilla chips, nuts, popcorn and other snacks under
private label as well its own proprietary brand names.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SONIC CORP: Johnson Suit Transferred to Kansas Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alyssa Johnson and Harold Nyanjom,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Sonic Corp., a Delaware limited liability company and
America's Drive-In Restaurants LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, was transferred from the Sedgwick County
District Court with the assigned Case No. 2020-CV-001248 to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Wichita) on
September 8, 2020, and assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-01240-JWB-KGG.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.
Sonic Corp., more commonly known as Sonic, is the operator of an
American drive-in fast-food restaurant chain that is owned by
Inspire Brands, the parent company of Arby's and Buffalo Wild
Wings. As of August 27, 2018, 3,606 Sonic restaurants are located
in 46 U.S. states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan J. Stecklein, Esq.
Stecklein & Rapp Chartered
748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: (913) 371-0727
Fax: (913) 371-0727
Email: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
- and -
Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
Stecklein & Rapp Chartered
748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: (913) 371-0727
Fax: (913) 371-0727
Email: msr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
- and -
Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
Stecklein & Rapp Chartered
748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: (913) 371-0727
Fax: (913) 371-0727
Email: mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Heather S. Esau Zerger, Esq.
Stinson, LLP - Wichita
1625 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67206-6620
Tel: (316) 268-7978
Fax: (316) 265-1349
Email: heather.zerger@stinson.com
- and -
Lynn D. Preheim, Esq.
Stinson, LLP - Wichita
1625 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67206-6620
Tel: (316) 268-7930
Fax: (316) 268-9780
Email: lynn.preheim@stinson.com
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Specialized Bicycle
Components, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-0411 (E.D. N.Y., Sept.
2, 2020).
Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., commonly called Specialized,
is a United States-based company that designs, manufactures and
markets bicycles, bicycle components and related products under the
brand name "Specialized". The Morgan Hill, California-based company
was founded in 1974 by Mike Sinyard.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
SPRING BANK: Franchi Balks at Misleading Statement on F-Star SEA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPRING BANK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., DAVID ARKOWITZ, TODD
BRADY, TIMOTHY CLACKSOON, MARTIN DRISCOLL, KURT M. EICHLER, PAMELA
KLEIN, SCOTT SMITH, and F-STAR THERAPEUTICS LIMITED, Case No.
1:20-cv-01198-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 relating to the filing of an alleged false and misleading
registration statement for their share exchange agreement with
F-star Therapeutics Limited.
The Board of Directors of Spring Bank caused the Company to enter
into a share exchange agreement with F-star Therapeutics Limited on
June 29, 2020, pursuant to which the issued capital of F-star will
be acquired by Spring Bank, as well as each ordinary share of
F-star in exchange for shares of Spring Bank common stock.
The Registration Statement filed by the Defendants with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, however, is false and
misleading because there were omitted material information which is
important to stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, according to the complaint. The omitted material
information includes the Company's and F-star's financial
projections, the confidentiality agreement entered into by Spring
Bank prior to the Special Committee's engagements of Ladenburg, the
process leading up to the execution of the agreement, and whether
there is any Company's financial analyses performed by its
financial advisor Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc.
The Plaintiff owns Spring Bank common stock.
Spring Bank is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company engaged
in the discovery and development of a novel class therapeutics
using its proprietary small molecule nucleotide platform. David
Arkowitz, Todd Brady, Timothy Clackson, Kurt M. Eichler, Pamela
Klein are directors of the Company. Scott Smith is the Chairman of
the Board. Martin Driscoll is the President, Chief Executive
Officer, and a director of the Company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Fax: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
STARKIST CO: Balks at Gardner Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN GARDNER, et al., on
behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STARKIST
CO., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-02561-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), Starkist will move the Court on October 21, 2020, for an
order denying class certification of:
Nationwide class in connection with unjust enrichment claim:
"all persons who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
purchased the tuna products in the United States"; and
State-specific subclass in connection with statutory claim:
"all [state] citizens who within the applicable statute of
limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
purchased the tuna products in [state]."
The Defendant contends that class certification should be denied on
the grounds that:
-- none of the Plaintiffs' purported classes meets the
predominance requirement of FCRP 23(b)(3) because
individualized determinations would be required regarding
exposure to the StarKist representations at issue;
-- the Plaintiffs' purported nationwide unjust enrichment
class also 11 fails the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) because application of the laws of all 50 states
would be required; and
-- none of the Plaintiffs' purported classes can be certified
under Rule 23(b)(2) because Plaintiffs primarily seek
monetary relief.
The Plaintiffs assert claims against StarKist for unjust enrichment
and for violation of California, Florida, New York, New Jersey,
Minnesota, Arizona, and Michigan consumer protection statutes.
The Plaintiffs allege that on "every can and pre-packaged tuna
pouch, StarKist states that the tuna products are 'Dolphin Safe'
with its own special dolphin logo." The Plaintiffs further allege
that StarKist dolphin safe label is something different than what
the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) requires.
StarKist Co., is an American company based in Pittsburgh's North
Shore that is now wholly owned by Dongwon Industries of South
Korea. It was purchased by Dongwon from the American food
manufacturer Del Monte Foods on June 24, 2008, for slightly more
than $300 million.
A copy of the Company's motion to deny class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hVozKE at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Roxane A. Polidora, Esq.
Lee Brand, Esq.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 983-1000
Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
E-mail: roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com
lee.brand@pillsburylaw.com
SUSHI OTA INC: Cota Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Sushi Ota Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sushi Ota Inc., a California
corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01721-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2020).
Sushi Ota Inc. is Chef-owned Japanese outfit in a modest strip-mall
locale that crafts premium sushi & omakase tastings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Wilshire Law Firm
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
TENNANT COMPANY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Watson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD WATSON, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees
of Defendants in the State of California, v. TENNANT COMPANY, a
Minnesota Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-02462-WEBS-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William D. Hubbub
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final
approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive award
2. solely for the purpose of this settlement, certifying the
following class:
"all current or former employees of Pennant Company
employed as non-exempt Service Technicians (including
those who performed the same duties as Service Technicians
but with a different job title) in the State of California
and who were not covered by a valid collective bargaining
agreement at any time from August 7, 2014 through March
19, 2020";
3. appointing Mr. Edward Watson as class representative and
finding that he meets the requirements of Rule 23;
4. appointing Alvarez Individualize, Esq., and Assad M. Marva
of Light Law Group APC, as class counsel and finding that
they meet the requirements of Rule 23;
5. granting Plaintiff's counsel fees in the amount of
$366,666.66, and litigation costs in the amount of
$11,441.29;
6. granting Analytic Consulting an administration
costs in the amount of $8,141.00;
7. granting plaintiff and class representative Edward
Watson to a service award in the amount of $25,000;
8. declaring that the remaining settlement funds shall be
paid to participating class members in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement; and
9. directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing
case with prejudice.
The court grants final certification of the settlement class and
approves the settlement set forth in the settlement agreement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlement agreement is binding
upon all participating class members who did not exclude
themselves.
The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Tennant
Company alleging various claims related to defendant's failure to
properly pay technicians for all hours worked, including minimum
wage and overtime, and failure to permit legally compliant meal and
rest periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a service technician in
California during the class period, including during part of 2016.
The Defendant is a Minnesota corporation specializing in the sale
and service of cleaning industry products.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order RE: unopposed motion for
final approval of class action settlement is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32LSkZO at no extra charge.[CC]
TEZOS FOUNDATION: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit Over its $232MM ICO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Coinnounce reports that the Tezos Foundation has settled the
class-action lawsuit that has been in progress since 2017. The
company settled with plaintiffs for $25 million for its ICO, which
raised $232 million. Investors who bought XTZ tokens during Tezos'
initial ICO are eligible to file a claim. Investors who sold tokens
prior to Nov. 25, 2019, at a loss are also eligible for
compensation. However, investors who still hold their original XTZ
and those who have not sold XTZ at a loss will not be eligible to
file the claim.
Tezos settles the laws suit for $25 million.
Tezos settled the class-action lawsuit over its multi-million ICO
for $25 million. However, investors would still need to do quite a
bit of work for their payouts. Lawyer and Tezos blogger Alex Liu
says that users may need to collect a lot of information, including
contribution addresses, emails, and self-calculated losses.
Furthermore, those who receive compensation may need to pay taxes
on that amount. Investors "might be getting back a small nominal
amount," Liu noted. The class-action lawsuit settlement also means
that investors cannot launch a similar lawsuit around Tezos'
security status in the future.
The US SEC did not reveal whether it considers XTZ as security.
The class-action lawsuit asked the question of whether Tezos' ICO
constituted an unregistered security offering. The settlement did
not find that Tezos is a security, and the Tezos Foundation will
continue to deny that XTZ is security. The outcome of the case only
means that investors must be compensated for their losses. The case
has little bearing on whether the Securities and Exchange
Commission considers XTZ is security. Statements from 2018 suggest
that US SEC is keeping documents on Tezos, even though the
regulator has not taken any direct action against the organization.
[GN]
TRIAD MANUFACTURING: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Smith ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing, Inc., et al.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
James Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Triad Manufacturing, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan v. GreatBanc Trust Company; the Board of
Directors of Triad Manufacturing, Inc.; David Caito; Robert Hardie;
and Michael McCormick, Case No. 1:20-cv-02350, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 24,
2020, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Triad ESOP is an ERISA protected retirement plan whereby the
individual retirement accounts of current and former employees are
invested entirely in the stock of Triad Manufacturing, Inc. There
is no recognized market for Triad stock; thus, the value of the
stock must be determined based on a private valuation of the
Company. The Plaintiff's claims stem from the creation of the Triad
ESOP in December 2015 and, shortly thereafter, the sale of 100% of
the Company's stock to the Triad ESOP at an inflated value (the
"2015 Transaction" or the "Transaction") by the Co-Presidents of
Triad, Defendants David Caito, Robert Hardie, and Michael
McCormick.
The Transaction occurred on December 17, 2015, when the Defendants
caused employees' retirement accounts in the ESOP to purchase 1.83
million shares of the Triad's voting common stock at $58.05 per
share ($106.2 million in the aggregate) from the sellers of the
stock, including Defendants Caito, Hardie and McCormick
(collectively the "Selling Shareholders"). The ESOP financed the
purchase of Triad shares by assuming a loan of $106.2 million,
which Triad itself guaranteed. Because Triad was required to make
contributions to the ESOP sufficient to pay all loan payments due,
Triad's future cash flows were reduced by the amount necessary to
service the ESOP's Transaction debt of $106.2 million.
The appellate case is captioned as James Smith v. Board of
Directors of Triad Manufacturing, Inc. et al., Case No. 20-2708, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript information sheet is due by September 23, 2020;
and
-- Appellants' brief is due on or before October 19, 2020, for
Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing, Inc., David
Caito, Robert Hardie and Michael McCormick.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JAMES SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the Triad Manufacturing, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, is represented by:
Daniel Sutter, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W., West Tower
Washington, DC 20005-3964
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
Defendants-Appellants BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRIAD MANUFACTURING,
INC., DAVID CAITO, ROBERT HARDIE, and MICHAEL MCCORMICK are
represented by:
Matthew D. Grabell, Esq.
FORDHARRISON, LLP
271 17th Street N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30309-0000
Telephone: (404) 888-3820
E-mail: mgrabell@fordharrison.com
- and -
John C. O'Connor, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
180 N. Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 960-6117
E-mail: joconnor@fordharrison.com
U.S. XPRESS: Terry Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class in "Stein" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as LEWIS STEIN, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00098-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs Deirdre Terry,
Charles Clowdis, and Bryan K. Robbins ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure a class consisting of the
following:
"all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Class A common stock of USX pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission and who were
damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate
families, the officers and directors and affiliates of
Defendants, at all relevant times, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants
have or had a controlling interest.
2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel.
US Xpress provides transportation services.
A copy of Terry et al.'s motion for class certification order is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mFia9W at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
Kevin S. Sciarani, Esq.
Debashish Bakshi, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: 615/244-2203
Facsimile: 615/252-3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
willowr@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
ksciarani@rgrdlaw.com
dbakshi@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: 203 363-7500
Facsimile: 866 367-6510
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
David Garrison, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: 615 244-2202
Facsimile: 615 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
W. Scott Holleman
Marion C. Passmore
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 646 860-9449
Facsimile: 212 214-0506
E-mail: holleman@bespc.com
passmore@bespc.com
UNITED STATES: Feds Seek Dismissal of H-2B Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the Guam
Contractors Association's class action amended complaint over H-2B
visa petitions arguing the plaintiffs can no longer present the
court with any reasonable claims.
Attorneys for the DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation filed the
dismissal motion in the District Court of Guam and contend none of
the plaintiffs can establish standing to continue with the
litigation.
In 2016, the Guam Contractors Association and nearly a dozen
businesses sued the federal government for denying nearly all
petitions to hire H-2B workers for the island, when H-2B petitions
under the same set of facts were approved in the past.
Employers were able to get approvals for their H-2B petitions again
in 2018.
According to the DOJ, a number of the concerns of denials are now a
moot issue after Congress enacted and reauthorized provisions of
the National Defense Authorization Act that specifically exempted
H-2B petitions filed by military contractors and sub-contractors
from having to demonstrate the "temporary need" requirement.
The government attorneys allege none of the plaintiffs are
"presently suffering any injury" and that the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services did approve H-2B petitions in April and May.
[GN]
VARIAN MEDICAL: Kent Suit Challenges $16.4-Bil. Sale to Siemens
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DOW R. WILSON, R. ANDREW
EXKERT, DAVID J. ILLINGWORTH, JEAN-LUC BUTEL, ANAT ASHKENAZI,
REGINA E. DUGAN, JUDY BRUNER, JEFFREY R. BALSER, PHIL FEBBO, and
MICHELLE LE BEAU, Case No. 1:20-cv-001178-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the proposed merger and acquisition of Varian Medical by Siemens
Healthineers Holding 1 GmbH, et al.
The Plaintiff owns Varian common stock.
Varian's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan merger with Siemens Healthineers Holding 1 GmbH,
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., and Falcon Sub Inc. on August
2, 2020, in an all-cash transaction valued at $16.4 billion on a
fully diluted basis. Pursuant to the agreement, Varian's
stockholders will receive $177.50 in cash from Siemens Healthineers
as an acquisition payment for each share of Varian common stock
they own.
According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement filed by the
Defendants with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 28, 2020, in connection with the Proposed Transaction, is
false and misleading because there were omitted material
information. The material information omitted by the Defendants
were the Company's financial projections, and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC, which are important to the Company's stockholders in deciding
how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.
Varian Medical Systems, Inc., has developed, built, and delivered
innovative cancer care technologies and solutions for the Company's
clinical partners around the globe to help them treat millions of
patients each year. Dow R. Wilson is the Chief Executive Officer,
President, and a director of the Company. R. Andrew Eckert is
Chairman of the Board of the Company. David J. Illingworth,
Jean-Luc Butel, Anat Ashkenazi, Regina E. Dugan, Judy Bruner,
Jeffrey R. Balser, Phil Febbo, and Michelle Le Beau are directors
of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
VIVIENNE WESTWOOD: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Guglielmo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VIVIENNE WESTWOOD, Case No. 1:20-cv-07369 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
http://www.viviennewestwood.com,and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a designer clothing company that owns and operates
the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
WALLER ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Bowers Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN BOWERS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
WALLER ENTERPRISE, INC., KARL WALLER, DOE CORPORATION 1-10, JOHN
DOE 1-10, Case No. 5:20-cv-02005 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 8, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Minimum
Wage Fairness Act and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
from October 18, 2016, to January 2018. The Plaintiff contends that
he and other similarly situated delivery drivers were required by
the Defendants to provide their own cars to use for their delivery
duties and incur job-related expenses. However, he alleges, the
Defendants failed to reimburse them on the actual expenses they
incur or at the IRS standard business mileage rate since the
Defendants neither track or record the delivery drivers' actual
expenses nor collect receipts from their delivery expenses. As a
result, the Plaintiff says he and other similarly situated delivery
drivers were deprived of minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA and
Ohio law.
The Defendants have failed to properly take a tip credit from the
wages of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery
drivers, and failed to properly inform them of the requirements for
taking a tip credit, the Plaintiff alleges.
Waller Enterprise, Inc. operates four Domino's Pizza locations in
the Kent area. Karl Waller is the owner of the Company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Tel: (614) 604-8759
Fax: (614) 340-4620
Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
- and –
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Tel: (513) 715-8711
Fax: (614) 340-4620
Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
lroselle@billerkimble.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Sorace Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Vincent Sorace, Joseph Yerty, Tammy Yerty,
James Zaronsky, Linda Zaronsky, Viktor Stevenson, Ashley Yates and
Kimberly Solomon-Robinson, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, was transferred from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pa. with the assigned Case No. 200700334 to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on September 2, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 2:20-cv-04318.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jarrod Shaw, Esq.
McGuireWoods LLP
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 667-7907
Email: jshaw@mcguirewoods.com
WHEELING CITY, WV: Temporary Restraining Bid Filed in Sturgeon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A request emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction has been filed in the class action lawsuit
styled as Mervin B. Sturgeon, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City Manager Robert Herron,
individually and in his official capacity, The City of Wheeling,
its division, The Wheeling Police Department and The West Virginia
Division of Highways, an agency of the West Virginia Department of
Transportation, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00192-JPB (N.D. W.Va.,
Sept. 2, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.
The Defendants are government representatives and employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Loree B. Stark, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia
Post Office Box 3952
Charleston, WV 25339-3952
Tel: (914) 393-4614
Fax: (304) 345-0207
Email: lstark@acluwv.org
- and -
Patrick S. Cassidy, Esq.
Cassidy, Cogan, Shapell & Voegelin, L.C.
First State Capitol Building
1413 Eoff Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Tel: (304) 232-8100
Fax: (304) 232-8200
Email: pcassidy@walslaw.com
- and -
Timothy F. Cogan, Esq.
Cassidy, Cogan, Shapell & Voegelin, L.C.
First State Capitol Building
1413 Eoff Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Tel: (304) 232-8100
Fax: (304) 232-8200
Email: tfc@walslaw.com
WILKES GROUP: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
The Wilkes Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Wilkes Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07156 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020).
The Wilkes Group Inc. operates as a transportation company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WIRECARD AG: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Wirecard AG. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
Wirecard AG (OTC PINK:WRCDF)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form-2?prid=9066&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
Class Period: August 17, 2015 - June 24, 2020
Allegations against WRCDF include that: (1) Wirecard overstated its
cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming EUR1.9
billion of cash in a trust account that was missing; (2) Wirecard
overstated its financial results during the Class Period, including
revenue and EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk
management or countermeasures; (4) the Company's external auditor
failed to audit Wirecard in accordance with applicable auditing
principles; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
YIELDSTREET INC: Misleads Investors to Buy Products, Tecku Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TECKU, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YIELDSTREET INC.; YIELDSTREET MANAGEMENT,
LLC; YS ALTNOTES I, LLC; YS ALTNOTES II, LLC; and MICHAEL WEISZ,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07327 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020), arises from the
false and misleading statements made by the Defendants to investors
to induce them to purchase certain YieldStreet innovative income
generating products through the Defendants' online investment
portal, http://www.YieldStreet.com/.
The class action complaint is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and every individual, who invested in one of YieldStreet's vessel
deconstruction, oil & gas, or other defaulted funds on the basis of
the alleged false and misleading statements.
According to the complaint, all of the investments at issue in this
complaint were offered pursuant to YieldStreet's April 5, 2018
and/or January 16, 2019 private placement memoranda. Both of those
documents included blatant misrepresentations about YieldStreet's
past performance--specifically, the false claim that no product
offered on YieldStreet's online platform had suffered any principal
loss. In reality, a confidential email authored by YieldStreet's
president, Michael Weisz, in July 2017 acknowledges that a
YieldStreet "rideshare expansion" fund had gone into default, and
in fact, principal remains outstanding on that loan to this day.
YieldStreet affirmatively misrepresented this to the public to lull
them into believing that YieldStreet's team had a successful track
record sourcing and structuring performing deals in the nuanced
markets YieldStreet was promoting.
The implosion of YieldStreet's ill-fated "vessel deconstruction"
portfolio illustrates the misrepresentation upon which the entire
YieldStreet model is premised, according to the complaint. These
funds, which comprise the vast majority of YieldStreet's marine
finance portfolio, collapsed in the spring of 2020, culminating in
a series of defaults that evaporated nearly $90 million of investor
funds in the process. While YieldStreet advertised that its Marine
Finance team has decades of experience in the shipping industry, it
failed to disclose that no one at YieldStreet had any experience
whatsoever actually structuring vessel demolition deals.
Yieldstreet Inc. is a New York-based company, which offers an
alternative investment platform focused on generating passive
income streams for investors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron M. Zeisler, Esq.
ZEISLER PLLC
800 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 671-1921
Facsimile: (888) 229-1178
E-mail: aaron@zeisler-law.com
- and -
Joseph Peiffer, Esq.
Daniel B. Centner, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
Facsimile: (504) 608-1465
E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com
dcentner@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Jason J. Kane, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
1150-J Pittsford-Victor Road, 1st Floor
Pittsford, NY 14534
Telephone: (585) 310-5140
Facsimile: (504) 608-1465
E-mail: jkane@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq.
Adolfo J. Anzola, Esq.
SONN LAW GROUP, P.A.
One Turnberry Place
19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 912-3000
Facsimile: (786) 485-1501
E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com
aanzola@sonnlaw.com
service@sonnlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***