/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201002.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 198 Headlines AAR CORP: Gusinsky Trust Suit Challenges Adoption of Poison Pill ABOFF'S INC: Filippone Alleges Discrimination, Abrupt Termination ACER THERAPEUTICS: May Face Damages Under Securities Class Action AFFINITY FEDERAL: Abramson Files Suit in New Jersey AMERICAN AUTO: Carbonelli Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls AUSTRALIA: Tasmania Faces Class Action Over Ashley Youth Abuse BAKE ME A WISH: Romero Allges Violation under ADA BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Futures, Lamborn Alleges BANNER BANK: Bowers Sues Over Improper Assessment of Bank Fees BARNABAS HEALTH: McGowan Sues Over Breaches of Duties Under ERISA BERKSHIRE HILLS: SI Financial Shareholder Withdraws Appeal BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing BLACKBERRY LTD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on Oct. 20 CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending CAPITA SNOWBOARDS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims CARIB INC: Pena Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff CAVENDER'S BOOT: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS100MM Class Action Over Tariffs CHHJ FRANCHISING: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Campbell Claims CLEARVIEW AI: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Stay Order COLUMBIA COLLECTION: Faces Brown TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Wellington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay CURIO MANAGEMENT: Faces Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit in California DANSKE BANK: Plumbers Fund Appeals Decisions in Securities Suit DIAMONDPEAK HOLDINGS: Di Donato Sues Over Merger With Lordstown DIME COMMUNITY: Parshall Balks at Proposed Sale to Bridge Bancorp DIRECT CHECKS: Romero Suit Asserts Breach of ADA DRAPER AND KRAMER: Vasquez Sues Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages DREX CORP: Fails to Provide OT Pay & Wage Notices, Naranjo Claims EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix SDNY Class Suit ENLIVANT MASTER: Underpays Nursing and Care Staff, Braxton Claims EOG RESOURCES: Wake Energy LLC Files Suit in Wyoming FACEBOOK INC: Locke Ford Discuss $650M BIPA Class Action Settlement FIDELITONE LAST: Venegas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California FIFTH SUN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site FRENCH PARADOX: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retained Tips FRITO-LAY: Responds to Class Action Over Ruffles Flavor Labels GLOBALSCAPE INC: Thompson Calls Merger Docs "Misleading" HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Smith Files Prisoner Rights Suit HILTON WORLDWIDE: Cosinteno Appeals D.P.R. Ruling to 1st Circuit HIRE DYNAMICS: Madera Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action HUEGAR LLC: Faces Nunez Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D. New York INOVIO PHARMA: Plaintiff in McDermid Suit Files Amended Complaint INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over 7nm Processor Delay IWC HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hernandez-Conde Claims J2 GLOBAL: Bid for Class Notice Pending in Davis Neurology Suit J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Securities Class Action in California Underway KILWINS CHOCOLATES: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA LOUISIANA: Bar Owners Mull Class Action Over Second Shutdown M&M WINES CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Wash. Nationals Catcher Files Class Action MARRIOTT INT'L: 2008 Data Breach Suits Underway in U.S. and Canada MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action in London Over Data Breach MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL: Beinbrech Suit Removed to C.D. California MDL 2971: Transfer of 10 Class Suits to E.D. New York Sought MEDMARK SERVICES: Walsh Suit Transferred to N.D. California MIDWAY ARMS: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA MINNEAPOLIS: Police Sued Over Use of Force Against Protesters MOSES H. CONE: Ellis Winters Atty. Discusses Ruling in "Chambers" MYOS RENS TECHNOLOGY: Faasse Balks at $173-Mil. MedAvail Merger NEW YORK: Bill & Ted's Suit Challenges COVID-19 Executive Orders NORTON HEALTHCARE: Class Certification for 15K Participants Sought NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Marshall Suit Over Unfair Minimum Wages NUTANIX INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Putative Class Suit ONE GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Claims ORACLE: Faces Class Action in Netherlands Over Privacy Violations PAPERLESS INC: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation PEEL ACCESSORIES: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Potential Class Action Withdrawn PENN MUTUAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Cochran Securities Suit PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Must Face Expanded Fishermen's Class Action PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits over Line 901 Incident PRINCESS CRUISES: Ruby Princess Passengers File Class Action PROASSURANCE CORP: Faces Suit over Specialty Property Statements PURDUE PHARMA: City of Vermilion to Join Opioid Class Action QUANTA SERVICES: Faces $8.8MM Damages in Suit vs Former Unit RECON OILFIELD: McDaniel Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators REVERB.COM LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Graciano Says REWALK ROBOTICS: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Yan Class Action ROMEO'S: Faces Underpayments Class Action ROOMSTOGO.COM INC: Graciano Sues Over Denied Access to Web Site SAGINAW PRODUCTS: Denies Rights to Paid Leave, Stevens Suit Says SARTON PUERTO RICO: Fiorentine Suit Transferred to Puerto Rico SASOL LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action SCRIBD INC: Licea Sues Over Inconspicuous Automatic Renewal Offer SIRAB IMPORTS: Lalousis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Moshen Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls STG INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges STIHL SOUTHWEST: Stigger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TARGET CORP: Seiller Sues Over False Up&Up Acetaminophen Labels TREVCO INC: Nisbett Asserts Breach of ADA in New York TU CASA RESTAURANT: Chumil Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Circuit UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DEA Cash Grabs Amended UNITED STATES: Medrano Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Meinders TCPA Suit UTAH: Ringgold Files Suit v. System of Higher Educ. UTICA FIRST: Kite & Key Seeks Payment for Losses Due to COVID-19 VARA CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York VAXART INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Shareholder Claims VI DEVELOPMENT: Cuaya Action Granted Collective Status VICOSOFT INC: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York VIKI INC: Martinez Sues Over Violation of Automatic Renewal Law VIKING RIVER CRUISES: Winegard Alleges ADA Violation VIRGIN SCENT: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera WEST MARINE: Faces Graciano Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site WILCO LIFE: Anderson Appeals Order in Insurance Suit to 11th Cir. WISE CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says WOOD GROUP: Iannotti Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages [*] Australians Must Not Bow to US Lobbyists Against Class Action [*] Litigation Funding Reforms in Aus. Must Strike Right Balance Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at July 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment for Sikorsky ********* AAR CORP: Gusinsky Trust Suit Challenges Adoption of Poison Pill ---------------------------------------------------------------- VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated holders of AAR CORP. v. ANTHONY K. ANDERSON; MICHAEL R. BOYCE; H. JOHN GILBERTSON; JAMES E. GOODWIN; JOHN M. HOLMES; PATRICK J. KELLY; ROBERT F. LEDUC; DUNCAN J. MCNABB; PETER PACE; DAVID P. STORCH; JENNIFER L. VOGEL; MARC J. WALFISH; RONALD B. WOODARD; AAR CORP.; and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2020-0714 (Del. Ch., Aug. 28, 2020), is an action against the AAR board of directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with their adoption of an unusually onerous poison pill or shareholder rights plan. On March 30, 2020, the Board announced that it had unilaterally adopted a highly aggressive version of a "Poison Pill" shareholder rights plan. The Plaintiff contends that the combination of a low 10% trigger and a vague and grossly overbroad definition of "Acting-in-Concert" in AAR's Poison Pill exceeds any prior notion of permissible exercise of director power. According to the complaint, the Poison Pill is particularly aggressive for two reasons. First, the Pill utilizes a 10% triggering threshold (the "10% Trigger"), which, is a lower threshold than is typical for poison pills and is likely to itself chill proxy contests. Second, the Pill also contains broad and facially unmanageable "aggregation" and "acting in concert" provisions (the "Wolfpack" provisions), which go far beyond the aggregation provisions previously approved in the context of rights plans. In concert with the aggressive 10% Trigger, these Wolfpack provisions are so draconian as to be highly coercive and even effectively preclusive as the provisions severely hobble or shut down the ability of any stockholder or group of shareholders to seek to influence the direction of the Company. AAR Corp. supplies aftermarket products and services to the global aviation and aerospace industry. The Company purchases, sells, and leases new and used commercial jet aircraft, as well as leases a variety of new, overhauled, and repaired engines and engine products for the aviation aftermarket.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3601 - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Thomas G. James, Esq. Jacqueline Ma, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - Richard Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 ABOFF'S INC: Filippone Alleges Discrimination, Abrupt Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FILIPPONE, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. ABOFF'S, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04393 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid manual worker in the position of a driver from in March 2017 until his termination on October 23, 2019. According to the complaint, while he was employed with the Defendant in April 2019, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with and suffered from colon cancer, which constitutes a disability under the ADA an NYSHRL. Consequently, he began his medical leave on May 7, 2019, to undergo treatment. Although he kept updating the Defendant about the status of his disability, however, the General Manager criticized him for his certain absences despite knowing that his absences are directly related to his disability and medical treatment. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff was terminated by the Defendant on October 23, 2019, an hour later when he remind the Defendant about his return to work date on November 4, 2019. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has committed discrimination and retaliation against him and terminated his employment due to his disability in violation of the ADA and NYSHRL, thereby, causing him to suffer damages for monetary and/or economic harm, loss of past and future income, and the loss of employment-related benefits that he would have otherwise received. Aboff's, Inc., is a retailer of paint and painting supplies for commercial and residential properties with more than 30 stores in Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 ACER THERAPEUTICS: May Face Damages Under Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP disclosed that Acer Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ACER) may face damages caused by a pending securities class action. Acer Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Shareholder Class Action Against Acer Therapeutics Inc. (ACER) Survives Motion to Dismiss According to the complaint, Acer misrepresented that a conversation it had with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding its drug candidate EDVISO. Acer claimed publicly that "the FDA agreed that additional clinical development is not needed" for the drug. Acer went on to raise almost $59 million in two offerings based on this information. However, contrary to Acer's public comments, the FDA had not approved the new drug application for EDVISO. In June 2019, when Acer revealed that the FDA needed it to "conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial" to determine EDVISO's effects in patients, Acer's stock price fell $15.16 per share, or over 75%, to close at $4.12 per share. On June 16, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory H. Woods denied in part Acer's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, stating that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged securities fraud claims. On July 21, 202, Judge Woods subsequently denied Defendants' motion to reconsider his decision, paving the way for litigation to proceed. Acer Therapeutics Inc. (ACER) Shareholders Have Legal Options Contact us to learn more: Lauren Levi (800) 350-6003 llevi@robbinsllp.com Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. To be notified if a class action against Acer settles or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] AFFINITY FEDERAL: Abramson Files Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affinity Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Jenny Abramson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Affinity Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-13104-MAS-ZNQ (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed pursuant to the Diversity-Other Contract. Affinity Federal Credit Union is a financial institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PA 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Tel: (732) 855-6402 Email: kroddy@wilentz.com AMERICAN AUTO: Carbonelli Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER CARBONELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AUTO REPAIR COVERAGE, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN AUTO REPAIR, Case No. 0:20-cv-61760-RS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. American Auto Repair Coverage, LLC, d/b/a American Auto Repair, provides automobile warranty services. [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 AUSTRALIA: Tasmania Faces Class Action Over Ashley Youth Abuse -------------------------------------------------------------- Loretta Lohberger, writing for ABC, reports that Nick* was 17 years old when he was detained at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre (AYDC) in the early 2000s. He said he had "a night on the piss" that went wrong. "It was a robbery where I probably shouldn't have been and I just got nabbed for it and put in Ashley," he said. Nick, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was detained on remand at the AYDC for two months. When he was sentenced, the judge asked why Nick was even taken to the AYDC. His sentence was non-custodial. Nick said the two months he spent at the AYDC had a "massive impact" on his life. "I don't even like to go into it. It's just stuff I'd prefer not to remember. I don't wish it on my worst enemy," Nick said. Nick was on a very different path before he went to the AYDC. He was working full-time, playing football and said he was looking forward to a good life and a good career. "When I got out, shit went bad. I turned to drugs, I've been in and out of jail still to this day," he said. "[I] turned to pills, ice, whatever I could get my hands on -- just to stop me thinking about things that happened [at the AYDC]. Nick will join a class action being prepared against the Tasmanian Government alleging abuse of detainees at the AYDC -- formerly Ashley Home for Boys -- near Deloraine, in the state's north. Lawyer Sebastian Buscemi from Angela Sdrinis Legal is preparing the claims. He said he decided to launch a class action after interviews with more than 100 former AYDC detainees, and children who were housed there because foster homes could not be found for them. Most were at the centre sometime between 1980 and 2010. The action will focus on three main allegations: excessive use of isolation, excessive strip searching, and the use of what is thought to be a scabies cream being applied to children's genitals, when the cream was not suitable for such an application. "The volume of people we're hearing these allegations from would suggest that a lot of these practices were extremely widespread especially over those periods of time," Mr Buscemi said. It will be alleged the government breached its duty of care because the practices were allegedly taking place despite policies, laws and regulations put in place to stop them. "We've seen early government reports from 1925, 1953 highlighting problems [at the AYDC] that were repeatedly highlighted right up until 2016." Human Services Minister Roger Jaensch said the Government would let the potential legal matter run its course. "What I can be clear about, is that that's dealing with a period of history up to about 10 years ago," Mr Jaensch said. "These days the Ashley Youth Detention Centre is part of a statewide therapeutic youth justice system, and we are taking a lot of trouble in investing considerable resources in converting it into a fit-for-purpose therapeutic youth justice facility." Isolation, strip searching leading to 'further crime' Mr Buscemi said isolation was meant to be used as a last resort and for as short a time as possible. "We've found that children were placed in isolation for weeks, in some instances months," he said. "Isolation is something that will really damage even an adult with a very good history of mental health. "So a protracted period of isolation for a vulnerable child is going to cause significant psychological long-term problems and trauma — same as being strip searched, which can be very humiliating, especially the way it's been alleged they were often carried out." Mr Buscemi alleged the use of isolation and strip searching had led to a variety of psychological problems for former detainees. Mr Buscemi said it was difficult to know how many people might join the class action. He said he expects to file the action in the Supreme Court in Hobart this year. [GN] BAKE ME A WISH: Romero Allges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------- Bake Me a Wish LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bake Me a Wish LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07860 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Bake Me a Wish LLC is an online retailer for gourmet gifts.[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 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Metal Futures, Lamborn Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR H. LAMBORN, JR., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.; SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COREY FLAUM; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-13035-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the illegal conduct of the Defendants in manipulating gold, silver, platinum, and palladium futures and options contracts in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants manipulated the prices of precious metals derivatives that are traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. by "spoofing," wherein the trader Defendants placed orders for a contract and then quickly removed those orders in an effort to infect the market with false information about supply and demand. The Defendants' spoofing created artificial prices that benefitted their own positions at the expense of the Plaintiff and the Class. The unlawful conduct and manipulation drew the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"). On August 19, 2020, Bank of Nova Scotia entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ and a settlement with the CFTC, agreeing to pay a combined $60.4 million in criminal fines as it acknowledged that its traders spoofed the precious metals derivatives markets thousands of times during the Class Period. The Plaintiff says he transacted in COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX Silver Futures, and options on those futures contracts throughout the Class Period at artificial prices proximately caused by the Defendants' unlawful manipulation. Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian banking company with its headquarters in Toronto, Ontario. Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. is a New York corporation and a registered broker and dealer in securities with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Scotia Holdings (US) Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BNS Investments Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York is a trust company regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com rcortazar@koreintillery.com - and - Jamie L. Boyer, Esq. Carol L. O'Keefe, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: jboyer@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com - and - Louis F. Burke, Esq. LOUIS F. BURKE PC 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 682-1700 E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com BANNER BANK: Bowers Sues Over Improper Assessment of Bank Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ELLEN BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANNER BANK, Case No. 4:20-cv-05151-AB (E.D. Wash., Aug. 28, 2020), is an action over the Defendant's improper assessment and collection of two or more $30 fees on a single item returned for insufficient funds in breach of contracts and its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Unbeknownst to consumers, each time the Defendant reprocesses an electronic payment transaction, ACH transaction, or check for payment after it was initially rejected for insufficient funds, the Defendant chooses to treat it as a new and unique item that is subject to yet another fee, according to the complaint. But the Defendant's Account Documents never disclose that this counterintuitive and deceptive result could be possible and, in fact, promise the opposite. Banner Bank provides commercial banking services. The Bank offers savings account, debit and credit cards, loans, mobile banking, and other related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. James Bulthuis, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jbulthuis@tousley.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com martys@bsjfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com BARNABAS HEALTH: McGowan Sues Over Breaches of Duties Under ERISA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCIA L. MCGOWAN and TRACI M. SINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, INC., THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS AND ERISA ADMINISTRATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, INC., SYSTEM and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-13119-KM-ESK (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative class period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plans, namely the RWJBarnabas Health 401(k) Savings Plan and the RWJBarnabas Health 403(b) Savings Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plans, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plans by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plans despite the availability of identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104, the suit says. Barnabas Health, Inc. describes itself as "New Jersey's largest integrated health care delivery system, providing treatment and services to more than three million patients each year."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com BERKSHIRE HILLS: SI Financial Shareholder Withdraws Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the class action suit filed against SI Financial Group, Inc., has withdrawn his appeal, with prejudice, from the trial court's dismissal of his claims. According to Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, this effectively terminates the litigation. On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. ("SI Financial") shareholder. On June 26, 2019, the Company received notice of a verified consolidated amended complaint in this action, which was filed after consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed in the same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial. The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI Financial. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated SI Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the registration statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019 contains materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to SI Financial shareholders and were unjustly enriched by the subject merger transaction. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Of note, SI Financial merged with and into the Company on May 17, 2019, and ceased to have any further independent legal existence at that time. The Company and the individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in the verified consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation, which is still pending before the court. On April 16, 2020, the court issued a ruling granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss all counts of the Complaint. The Plaintiff's claims under federal law, including Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, were dismissed with prejudice, while certain state court claims under Connecticut law were dismissed without prejudice. On May 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed notice of his intention to appeal the trial court's dismissal of his claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but then subsequently withdrew his appeal with prejudice on June 8, 2020, thereby effectively terminating this litigation. Berkshire Hills said, "There are no other active cases proceeding against the Company or the individual Defendants in regard to the SI Financial merger." Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial, consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in SDNY Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint, but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which added the Company's former Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018. On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the case on its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery to continue. On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional plaintiffs Yong M. Cho and Batuhan Ulug. On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho and Ulug against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. Cho and Ulug filed their opening brief on February 20, 2020, the Company filed its opposition brief on May 21, 2020, and Cho and Ulug filed their reply brief on June 11, 2020. Fact discovery was completed on January 31, 2020, and expert discovery is scheduled to be completed by November 13, 2020. The Court removed the case from its suspense calendar on May 29, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8, 2020, the defendants filed oppositions on August 10, 2020, and the plaintiffs' reply was due September 28, 2020. No other dates have been set. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens. Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LTD: Employment Class Suit in Ontario Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend an employment class action suit filed before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the Company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. BLACKBERRY LTD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set on Oct. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that a final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for October 20, 2020. On February 4, 2019, a putative employment class action and California Private Attorney General Act claim was filed against the Company in the San Joaquin County Superior Court alleging the Company (i) failed to provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a); and (ii) failed to pay all wages due at termination in violation of California Labor Code Section 201. The complaint seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company filed its answer denying the allegations in the complaint on March 18, 2019. On August 22, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication of the named plaintiff's wage statement claims. The Court denied the motion on January 21, 2020. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on June 4, 2020. The Court granted preliminary settlement approval and certified the proposed class on July 16, 2020. The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for October 20, 2020. BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and services to enterprises and governments around the world. The company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150 million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages artificial intelligence ("AI") and machine learning to deliver innovative solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy, and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management, encryption, and embedded systems. CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is still pending. On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action). Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants in the Action. The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the company's business, operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. CAPITA SNOWBOARDS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAPITA SNOWBOARDS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07690-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under the Americans with Disabilities Act 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 Plaintiff claims that when she visited the Defendant's website, http://www.capitasnowboarding.com/,on multiple occasions to make a purchase, she encountered a multiple access barriers which denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's website allegedly lack of a variety of features and accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to determine what specific products were offered for sale. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who is dependent of screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Capita Snowboards LLC is an outdoor sports gear 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 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsacklegal.com CARIB INC: Pena Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PENA, LUIS HERNANDEZ, VICTORINO MENDEZ DELA CRUZ, VANESA LARGO, MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, LUIS ALMONTE, RUFINO PERALTO, PABLO GONZALEZ, RICARDO GARCIA, ALEJANDRO VALERJO, ESDRAS MORALES, ANIBAL SIGARAN and KARLA CALDERON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CARIB INC. d/b/a HAVANA NY RESTAURANT & BAR, HNY INC. d/b/a HAVANA NY RESTAURANT & BAR, and ABBAI TAGHAVITALAB, Case No. 1:20-cv-07810 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay them and other restaurant employees their lawfully earned minimum wages, overtime compensation, and "spread of hours" premium, in direct contravention of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants also fail to provide the Plaintiffs with a written wage notice setting forth, among other things, their regular hourly rate of pay, any tip credits taken against the statutory minimum wage, and their corresponding overtime rate of pay. Plaintiff Pena was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt cook and food preparer from 2012 until March 6, 2020. Plaintiff Luis Hernandez was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt food runner from September 2016 until March 7, 2020. Plaintiff Dela Cruz was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt food preparer/kitchen helper from 2009 until March 13, 2020. Plaintiff Largo was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt bartender from December 2018 until March 2019. Plaintiff Miguel Hernandez was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt busboy for their closed restaurant from 2009 until February 2015; and as a non-exempt food runner for the Defendants' current restaurant from September 2016 until March 15, 2020. Plaintiff Almonte was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt cook from October 29, 2016, until December 27, 2018. Plaintiff Peralto was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt food preparer/kitchen helper from February 2013 until February 2015, and again from September 2016 until April 2019. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt food runner from March 2017 until March 2019. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt bartender and waiter from September 2016 until February 2019; and again from August 2019 through September 2019; and again from November 2019 through January 2020. Plaintiff Valerio was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt cook from 2011 through February 2015, and again from November 2016 until December 2018. Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt busboy, food runner, and bar back from February 2017 until February 2019. Plaintiff Sigaran was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt bartender from December 2016 until June 2019. Plaintiff Calderon was employed by the Defendants to work as a nonexempt bartender from September 2016 through September 2017. Carib Inc. owns and operates a Cuban restaurant, doing business as "Havana NY Restaurant & Bar" in New York City. HNY Inc. formerly owned and operated a Cuban restaurant, doing business as "Havana NY Restaurant & Bar" in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com CAVENDER'S BOOT: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAVENDER'S BOOT CITY OF TEXARKANA INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07699-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act relating to its blind-inaccessible Web site, http://www.cavenders.com/. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff used a screen-reading software when she visited the Defendant's website in September 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase, she was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's website allegedly lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's public accommodation. Because the Defendant allegedly failed to comply with the WCAG2.1 Guidelines, which provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. Cavender's Boot City of Texarkana, Inc. is a clothing and apparel company that owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS100MM Class Action Over Tariffs -------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) (hereinafter: the "Company") disclosed that a purported class action was filed against the Company, alleging that the Company unlawfully raised tariffs and therefore charged its customers for its services, in violation of its license, applicable law and the agreement with its customers. The amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS100 million. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. About Cellcom Israel Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli communications group, providing a wide range of communications services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider, providing its approximately 2.747 million cellular subscribers (as at March 31, 2020) with a broad range of services including cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad, text and multimedia messaging, advanced cellular content and data services and other value-added services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an LTE 4 generation network and an HSPA 3.5 Generation network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel further provides OTT TV services, internet infrastructure and connectivity services and international calling services, as well as landline telephone services in Israel. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). [GN] CHHJ FRANCHISING: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Campbell Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LANDON CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHHJ FRANCHISING L.L.C., Case No. 8:20-cv-02208 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful pay practice, including improper payment of overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendant on December 22, 2019, as a Sales Agent. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without being compensated for the time performed in excess 40 hours at one and one-half times his regular pay. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to include the Plaintiff's commission in the calculation of his regular rate and regularly adjusted Plaintiff's earned commissions to reduce the amount paid to him. CHHJ Franchising L.L.C. provides junk removal, local and long distance full service moving and office relocation services, including in home donation pickup services for non-profit partner organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Christopher D. Gray, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Tel: (727) 254-5255 Fax: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com chris@fgbolaw.com CLEARVIEW AI: Opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Stay Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law Street reports that Clearview AI, its founder Hoan Ton-That, and Richard Schwartz filed a memorandum on Aug. 28 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman and Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez in opposition to the plaintiff's motion to reconsider a stay order. The defendants stated that the court's decision to grant the stay was reasonable and consistent with other cases. Clearview AI was originally sued by David Mutnick in January, who claimed that the company violated his and similarly situated individuals' privacy through their facial recognition database. They were accused of collecting images online without obtaining the subject's permission to use their image in the database. The court granted Clearview's motion to stay on August 21, waiting for a decision from the Judicial Panel on the Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) regarding the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated class-action to the Southern District of New York. Afterward, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, which alleged that the defendants' motion to stay "did not include two 'critical facts.'" However, the defendants have challenged this assertion, stating that the plaintiff "mischaracterizes both 'facts.'" The plaintiffs argued that the motion to stay "omits that Defendants' transfer motion before the JPML is not included on the Panel's docket for its upcoming September 24, 2020 hearing session" and that the "JPML will not address the motion until December 3, 2020 -- at the earliest." The defendants claimed that the plaintiff's "prediction . . . is speculative and assumes the Panel will elect to hold oral argument," however, the panel could address the motion without an oral argument with adequate facts and presented legal arguments. Moreover, an oral argument could be added before the December hearing. Clearview also pointed out that the plaintiff could submit a statement to the Panel sharing these concerns, but the plaintiff has not done so. The defendants added that "a stay of a few months in order to avoid potentially inconsistent rulings as well as a waste of party and judicial resources is entirely appropriate in the context of a complex class action that may last for years." The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' motion "omits that they have not sought a parallel stay of the New York Litigation and that they do not intend to do so." The defendants stated that this is false and they intend to ask Chief Judge McMahon to continue the stay at an upcoming teleconference, as the parallel suits in New York have already been held for three months. Clearview argued that the plaintiffs in this litigation are "not subject to any alleged ongoing harm." They claimed that the plaintiff "has not and cannot credibly allege that his image is even included in Clearview's database." Furthermore, Clearview stated that even if the plaintiff's image is in the database he "suffers no legally cognizable ongoing harm from this." Additionally, Clearview argued that it is exempt from the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) because it is working with law enforcement and other government agencies. Again, Clearview claimed this illustrates that the plaintiff has not been harmed like in Terkel. While the plaintiffs critiqued the defendants for not pursuing a stay in the Thornley case, where a motion to remand is fully briefed, Clearview noted that in the suit the plaintiff did not seek a stay because it would raise an Article III standing issue. Clearview claimed that it did not think the law supported a stay in that specific suit. Clearview also stated that a stay on the preliminary injunction would "preserve judicial resources." Furthermore, Clearview claimed that the parties' disagreement about BIPA highlighted the complexity of the suit and why it would benefit from a stay. As a result, Clearview stated that the court should deny the plaintiff's motion to reconsider. This is the latest activity in litigation against Clearview AI. Previously, Clearview's motion to dismiss and motion to transfer in this case were denied. Clearview is represented by Jenner & Block LLP. The plaintiff is represented by Loevy & Loevy. [GN] COLUMBIA COLLECTION: Faces Brown TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVITA BROWN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. COLUMBIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05575 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving calls to her cellular telephone number from the Defendant sometime in 2019 in an attempt to contact a third party unknown to the Plaintiff for the purpose of attempting to collect a debt in default. Despite the fact that she did not provide the Defendant prior express consent to place calls to her cellular telephone number by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, yet the Plaintiff received over 30 calls from the Defendant and at least two materially identical voice messages on her cellular telephone voicemail. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff contends that she suffered actual harm, including invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance. Columbia Collection Service, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Alexander Kruzyk, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 400 Congress Ave., Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com akryuzyk@gdrlawfirm.com COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA -------------------------------------------------- Commemorative Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Commemorative Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07862 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Commemorative Brands, Inc. manufactures and sells commemorative jewelry and memorabilia. The Company offers class rings, championship rings, consumer sports, family jewelry, diplomas, and graduation announcements. Commemorative Brands serves customers throughout the United States.[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 CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Wellington Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN WELLINGTON, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC and CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00815 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failing to compensate the Plaintiff and other correctional officers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid correctional officer at the West Tennessee Detention Center in Mason, Tennessee. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, provides facilities support management and consulting services, with its headquarters located at 5501 Virginia Way, in Brentwood, Tennessee. CoreCivic, Inc., owns and manages private prisons and detention centers, with its headquarters located in Brentwood.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com CURIO MANAGEMENT: Faces Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SMITH, on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees v. CURIO MANAGEMENT, LLC and CURIO EMPLOYER, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV370665 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for denial of proper payment of gratuities. The Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages owed during employment, and denial of payment for all wages owed following separation from employment in violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed as a service worker by the Defendants at Juniper Hotel Cupertino from August 2019 to February 2020. Curio Management, LLC, operates hotels and resorts in California, with its principal place of business located in Virginia. Curio Employer, LLC, operates hotels and resorts in California, with its principal place of business located in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Kristabel Sandoval, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com DANSKE BANK: Plumbers Fund Appeals Decisions in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 24, 2020, and Judgment dated August 24, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Plumbers & Steamfitters Local v. Danske Bank A/S, Case No. 19-cv-235, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Danske Bank American Depositary Receipts between January 9, 2014, and October 23, 2018, inclusive. During the Class Period, the Company was the largest financial institution in Denmark. It conducted a large volume of financial business, including transactions in the fields of asset management, investment, pensions, mortgage finance, insurance, and real estate brokerage and leasing, including with customers who reside or are domiciled outside Denmark. Between at least 2012 and March 2016, due to its lax controls and its new Chief Executive Officer's drive to report outsized profits at all costs, Danske Bank was facilitating money laundering through its Estonian bank branch, according to the complaint. All the while, its senior executives were ignoring the outcry of Estonian financial regulators who stormed its Estonian Branch in 2014 and sent Danske Bank a scathing 340-page report that listed a multitude of violations--which the Company did not even bother to translate for three years. Though a whistleblower brought the illegal Estonian money laundering to the attention of the Company's senior executives in December 2013, and Danish financial regulators had been investigating the misconduct since at least 2014, Danske Bank was intentionally less than forthcoming with the Danish financial regulators investigating its misconduct and throughout the Class Period was actively concealing the extent and severity of its culpability from investors. The appellate case is captioned as Plumbers & Steamfitters Local v. Danske Bank A/S, Case No. 20-3231, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Boston Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority Employees, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com Defendants-Appellees Thomas F. Borgen, Henrik Ramlau-Hansen, Jacob Aarup-Andersen, Ole Andersen, and Danske Banks, A/S are represented by: Edmund Polubinski, III, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4695 E-mail: edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com - and - Daniel J. Kramer, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com - and - Brian T. Frawley, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: frawleyb@sullcrom.com - and - Jonathan R. Tuttle, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 383-8124 E-mail: jrtuttle@debevoise.com - and - Bruce E. Yannett, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6495 E-mail: beyannett@debevoise.com DIAMONDPEAK HOLDINGS: Di Donato Sues Over Merger With Lordstown --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY DI DONATO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. DIAMONDPEAK HOLDINGS CORP.; DAVID T. HAMAMOTO; MARK A. WALSH; ANDREW RICHARDSON; STEVEN R. HASH; and JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, Case No. 654151/2020 (N.Y., Sup., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Lordstown Motors Corp., through its wholly-owned subsidiary DPL Merger Sub Corp., as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price. DiamondPeak is a special purpose acquisition company, or "SPAC," an entity that is formed strictly to raise capital through an initial public offering ("IPO") for the purpose of acquiring an existing company, and merging with it to take that entity public. Lordstown will merge with the Company, via a reverse merger where, when completed, existing Lordstown shareholders will own the vast majority, or 78%, of the go-forward company, by raising $675 million of gross proceeds from DiamondPeak shareholders to finance a portion of the purchase price, totaling a combined company valuation of approximately $1.6 billion (the "Proposed Transaction"). DiamondPeak public stockholders will own only approximately 14.5% of the surviving entity. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in an August 3, 2020 filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, DiamondPeak will merge into Lordstown and cease to exist, forming one publicly traded entity combined with the investors in Lordstown, significantly diluting DiamondPeak investors' share of the combined company, the Plaintiff asserts. According to the complaint, the Defendants caused to be filed with the SEC the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on August 24, 2020, in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their DiamondPeak shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives DiamondPeak stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy omits and misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; (b) the financial projections for Lordstown, which should have been provided to the Company's financial advisor the Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman") for use in its respective financial valuations; and (c) financial valuation analyses, if any, that were provided by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman. DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. operates as a special purpose acquisition company. The Company specializes in effecting a merger, stock exchange, acquisition, and reorganization. DiamondPeak Holdings serves clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516)741-4977 Facsimile (561)741-0626 DIME COMMUNITY: Parshall Balks at Proposed Sale to Bridge Bancorp ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIME COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC., VINCENT F. PALAGIANO, MICHAEL P. DEVINE, KENNETH J. MAHON, ROSEMARIE CHEN, STEVEN D. COHN, PATRICK E. CURTIN, KATHLEEN M. NELSON, JOSEPH J. PERRY, KEVIN STEIN, and BARBARA G. KOSTER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01279-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Dime alleging that the Defendants issued misleading statement in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Dime will be acquired by Bridge Bancorp, Inc. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2020, in connection with the proposed transaction announced on July 1, 2020, pursuant to which Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. will be acquired by Bridge Bancorp, Inc. The Registration Statement allegedly omits material information regarding the analyses performed by Dime's financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., where it fails to disclose (i) total assets; (ii) gross loans; (iii) total deposits; (iv) non-interest bearing deposits; (v) tangible common equity; (vi) last twelve months core net income; (vii) estimated 2020 net income; and (viii) estimated 2021 net income. The Registration Statement also fails to disclose the amount of compensation Raymond James has received or will receive for: (i) serving as joint book-running manager for Dime's public offering of preferred stock in January 2020 and sole book-running manager for Dime's public offering of preferred stock in June 2020; (ii) serving as agent for a share purchase program of Dime; and (iii) engaging in fixed income trading activity with BNB Bank. Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. is the holding company for Dime Community Bank, a community-oriented financial institution providing financial services and loans for multi-family housing within its market areas, in addition to loans to mid-size and small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com DIRECT CHECKS: Romero Suit Asserts Breach of ADA ------------------------------------------------ Direct Checks Unlimited Sales, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Direct Checks Unlimited Sales, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07857 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Direct Checks Unlimited, LLC was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of blankbooks and looseleaf binders.[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 DRAPER AND KRAMER: Vasquez Sues Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. DRAPER AND KRAMER MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 3:20-cv-06635 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code provisions, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Business Practices Act. The lawsuit is brought for labor-related claims, including denial of proper payment of all wages and commissions to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated loan officers, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and failure to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses incurred in performing their job duties. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a loan officer in California from September 4, 2018, through July 23, 2020. Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp. is the residential mortgage division of full-service real estate and financial firm Draper and Kramer, with its principal executive offices located in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER 1339 Bay Street Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 841-5500 Facsimile: (510) 521-9700 E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com - and – Kevin R. Allen, Esq. ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP 3172 Camino Colorados Lafayette, CA 94549 Telephone: (925) 695-4913 Facsimile: (925) 334-7477 E-mail: Kevin@allenattorneygroup.com DREX CORP: Fails to Provide OT Pay & Wage Notices, Naranjo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS NARANJO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DREX CORPORATION, MARCUS HANNICK and MICHAEL DURCAN, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-04462 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants' failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 each week, and to provide the Plaintiff with an annual wage notice or when his wage rate(s) changed, or wage statements along with his weekly wage payments. The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer at the Defendants' construction company from January 1, 2017, through August 27, 2020. Drex Corporation, which initially started in 2005 as Nua LLC and has since expanded, provides specialized construction services, including but not limited to support of excavation, pile drilling, dewatering and foundation work, throughout the New York City area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix SDNY Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing on a motion to dismiss the class action suit filed against Eagle Bancorp, Inc. before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has been completed and the motion is under consideration by the court, according to Eagle Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its current and former President and Chief Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and July 17, 2019. On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel. The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports and other public statements and disclosures contained materially false or misleading statements about, among other things, the effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure of increased legal expenses associated with certain government investigations involving the Company. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims asserted. On April 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 15, 2020, the defendants filed their reply brief. Briefing on the defendants' motion is now complete, and the motion is under consideration by the court. Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services primarily in the United States. It accepts business and personal checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment sweep accounts; and time deposits. Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. ENLIVANT MASTER: Underpays Nursing and Care Staff, Braxton Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- KANIKA BRAXTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ENLIVANT MASTER MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02111-SO (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful pay practice and policies, including underpayment of overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) between November 2019 and April 2020, alleges that the Defendant classified her and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees as non-exempt employees. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide meal periods to its nursing and care staff employees, including the Plaintiff, because they were required to perform work during meal periods on average 4 to 5 times each week. As a result, they were denied significant amounts of overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant has also allegedly failed to keep records of all the hours worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated nursing and care staff employees. Enlivant Master Management Co. LLC operates over 230 senior living facilities throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com EOG RESOURCES: Wake Energy LLC Files Suit in Wyoming ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOG Resources Inc. The case is styled as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOG Resources Inc, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00183-KHR (D. Wyo., Sept. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Contract Default. EOG Resources, Inc. is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in the Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas. The company is ranked 181st on the Fortune 500. The company was named Enron Oil & Gas Company before its separation from Enron in 1999.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A Erb , Jr, Esq. 222 South Gillette Avenue, Suite 310 P.O. Box 36 Gillette, WY 82717 Tel: (307) 682-0215 Fax: (307) 682-1339 Email: Rick@rickerb.com FACEBOOK INC: Locke Ford Discuss $650M BIPA Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Perdew, Esq., and Tara Trifon, Esq., of Locke Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on July 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California signaled that a $650 million settlement of claims against Facebook, Inc. for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") would likely be approved. This came a month after the judge strongly rejected a proposed $550 million settlement as insufficient. The settlement -- estimated to pay each class member between $200 and $400 -- is record-breaking in amount even though it is still significantly below the statutory damages of $1,000 and $5,000 provided by BIPA. In addition to the settlement amount, the Facebook litigation, and the court's anticipated decision, will likely provide a roadmap for other consumer-privacy class actions in the future, whether under BIPA, the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), or other similar statutes. Plaintiffs claimed Facebook violated BIPA by creating facial templates from scanned photos. The plaintiffs' claims arose from Facebook's use of the "Tag Suggestions" feature, which used facial recognition software to scan uploaded photos and create a template of people's faces. Facebook used the templates to identify individuals in other photos and suggest that a user "tag" that person, i.e., create a link to their Facebook profile. The complaint, filed in 2015, alleged that the "Tag Suggestions" program violated BIPA's notice-and-consent requirement. See 740 ILCS 14/15(a) and (b) (prohibiting private entities from obtaining or using an individual's biometric information without providing notice and obtaining written consent). The plaintiffs did not allege any actual harm, like the theft or misuse of their personal information by a third-party, but instead claimed that they were entitled to BIPA's statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000. See 740 ILCS 14/20. The parties exhaustively litigated, leaving few legal questions unresolved. Multiple class actions against Facebook were eventually consolidated in the Northern District of California, where the parties vigorously litigated the case for over five years. In that time, the district court denied Facebook's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, specifically finding that a statutory violation is an invasion of privacy sufficient to create standing to sue under both Article III and BIPA. Facebook appealed the class certification decision to the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of standing and order certifying a class. Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 937, 205 L. Ed. 2d 524 (2020). The Ninth Circuit agreed that BIPA did not require a plaintiff or class member to show any concrete injury beyond a statutory violation, either to establish Article-III standing or to recover under the statute. Facebook, 932 F.3d at 1274–75. Facebook petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, but the Supreme Court denied the petition on January 21, 2020. Eight days later, on January 29, 2020, the New York Times reported that the parties entered into a settlement that requires Facebook to pay $550 million to eligible Illinois users as well as for the plaintiffs' legal fees. See Natasha Singer and Mike Isaac, Facebook to Pay $550 Million to Settle Facial Recognition Suit, N.Y. Times, Jan. 29, 2020. The court rejected the initial settlement, leading to an extra $100 million. On June 4, 2020, the court held the first hearing on preliminary approval of the $550 million settlement, which would have resulted in a payout of $150 and $300 per class member. While the parties praised the agreement at the time, the court plainly stated that the settlement amount was insufficient as it would only give class member 1.25% of the maximum damages prescribed by BIPA. The court also focused on other elements of the settlement, like the form of the notice, the scope of the release, and the contemplated conduct remedy. The court scheduled a second hearing for July 23, 2020 so that a Facebook employee could testify on some of the technical aspects of the settlement. On the night before the hearing, the parties filed a notice of an amended settlement. In addition to addressing the court's concerns on the non-monetary elements of the agreement, the parties stated that the settlement fund would be increased by $100 million to a total of $650 million. The settlement fund was also augmented by the plaintiffs' counsel agreement to reduce their attorney fees from 25% to 20% of the $550 million settlement fund and 0% of the additional $100 million. As a result, the parties anticipate that each class member would receive between $200 and $400. The court's reaction to the amended settlement agreement was positive. The court noted that most of its initial concerns were addressed by the changes, including the monetary component of the agreement. The court spent most of the hearing asking questions about another outstanding concern: the claims rate or the number of people who ask for money from the settlement. Most class settlements have a claims rate of less than 5% of the total class. The court specifically stated that he wanted the parties to get to a "record-breaking" claims rate, through "splashy," attention-grabbing notices. The Facebook settlement will likely lead to increased scrutiny of data privacy settlements. Although the Facebook litigation is unique in several respects (high statutory damages; exhaustive litigation and appeals before settlement), the court's initial rejection of a half-billion dollar settlement and demand for a "record-breaking" claims rate will almost certainly lead to increased scrutiny in data-privacy class action settlements, as well any class action involving claims for statutory damages. For instance, it may signify an upward trend of settlement values and insistence on higher claims rates. Class-action claims processes are often cumbersome, often asking for a claimant to respond to a confusing and lengthy questionnaire and provide information that may be entirely irrelevant. The Facebook litigants came up with a new process that can be completed in a matter of seconds instead of minutes. Parties and courts will likely try different and more attention-grabbing class-settlement notices than have historically been used. While the Facebook notice is unique due to Facebook's ability to use its own platform in order to reach potential claimants, class-action notices in other cases will likely continue the trend towards more electronic notice. Regardless of the court's ultimate decision on the motion for preliminary or final approval, future litigants will likely look to the Facebook litigation for guidance before filing their own motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. [GN] FIDELITONE LAST: Venegas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as LUIS VENEGAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. FIDELITONE LAST MILE, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. C20-01469, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 22, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-06637 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and/or Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties. Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc., is a transportation and logistics company based in Bensenville, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Seth L. Neulight, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8200 Facsimile: (415) 984-8300 E-mail: sneulight@nixonpeabody.com - and – Erin Holyoke, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-6000 Facsimile: (855) 803-1806 E-mail: eholyoke@nixonpeabody.com FIFTH SUN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIFTH SUN, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07728-AT (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, who is blind and visually impaired, alleges that the Defendant has failed to maintain and operate its website, http://www.fifthsun.com/,in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. When he visited the Defendant's website using a popular screen reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access in July 2020 with the intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase, the Plaintiff has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him access similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's website lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation, the Plaintiff contends. Fifth Sun, LLC is a clothing company that owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com FRENCH PARADOX: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retained Tips --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA M. ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. THE FRENCH PARADOX INC. d/b/a OCabanon, ARMEL JOLY and ALEXANDRE MUR, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-07788 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other restaurant servers minimum wages and overtime pay. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendants' French restaurant in New York from September 2016 to December 11, 2019. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for failure to pay spread-of-hours pay, unlawful retainment of gratuities, failure to timely provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The French Paradox Inc., d/b/a OCabanon, operates a French restaurant located at 245 W. 29th Street, in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com FRITO-LAY: Responds to Class Action Over Ruffles Flavor Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class action lawyers griping about bags of potato chips forgot to include evidence to support their lawsuit, the maker of Ruffles says. Frito-Lay on July 24 filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the company should put the words "artificially flavored" on the front of bags of Cheddar & Sour Cream Ruffles. "This case is a textbook example of a complaint unsupported by reasonable investigation . . . " the motion says. "(T)he complaint does not allege any factual support for Plaintiff's claim that an 'artificially flavored' statement is required." Tami Svensrud, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the Orange County Superior Court against Frito-Lay earlier this year, alleging violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California Unfair Advertising Law. The defendant removed the case to federal court on April 10. Svensrud alleges in her complaint that Frito-Lay is misleading consumers because it does not properly label its Ruffles Cheddar & Sour Cream potato chips in such a way so that consumers can clearly see the product contains artificial flavoring, coloring and chemical preservatives. Svensrud claims Frito-Lay hides its artificial flavoring by alluding to the wording "artificial flavors" in the ingredient list and buries the word "flavor" in an "inconspicuous location" on the front label. "In high-level conclusory terms, Plaintiff alleges only that the Product uses an 'artificial butter flavor' and 'cheddar cheese flavor,'" Frito-Lay says. "But the complaint does not identify what the allegedly artificial ingredients are, much less why these unnamed ingredients require an artificially flavored label under federal regulations." Frito-Lay also says the lawsuit is preempted by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act because the Food and Drug Administration has already regulated when a product must disclose it has artificial flavors on the front of the package. The disclosure is required when artificial flavors stimulate the characterizing flavors, like cheddar and sour cream on the chips. The lawsuit does not allege what artificial flavors are associated with cheddar or sour cream, Frito-Lay says. "Plaintiff must do at least some work before imposing the heavy burdens of litigation on Frito-Lay. The complaint shows that she did not," the company says. The plaintiff is represented by Aashish Desai and Adrianne De Castro of The Desai Law Firm in Costa Mesa, California. [GN] GLOBALSCAPE INC: Thompson Calls Merger Docs "Misleading" -------------------------------------------------------- John Thompson's putative class action complaint filed in Delaware related to GlobalSCAPE, Inc.'s merger plan with Help/Systems, LLC, is underway, according to GlobalSCAPE's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On August 4, 2020, John Thompson, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court of Delaware, captioned John Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., Robert Alpert, Thomas E. Hicks, David L. Mann, C. Clark Webb, Help/Systems, LLC and Grail Merger Sub, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01039-UNA (the "Thompson Complaint") against the Company, all members of the Board of Directors, Help/Systems, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent") and Grail Merger Sub, Inc. a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Among other things, the Thompson Complaint alleges that the Company, Merger Sub and the members of the Board of Directors and Parent in their capacity as controlling persons, caused a materially incomplete and misleading Solicitation Statement, concerning, among other things, (i) the Company's financial projections relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, B. Riley, in its financial analyses, (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by B. Riley, filed on July 31, 2020 with the SEC and disseminated to Company stockholders, (iii) the engagement of past services of B. Riley and Stephens Inc., the Company's financial advisors and (iv) non-disclosure agreements prior to and during the "go-shop" process, rendering the Solicitation Statement false and misleading and in violation of the Exchange Act and related regulations. The Thompson Complaint seeks, among other things, (i) an order enjoining proceeding with the tender offer, (ii) in the event the Offer is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the alleged violations of the Exchange Act by the Company, the members of the Board of Directors, Parent and Merger Sub and (iii) an order directing the Board of Directors to file a Solicitation Statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and provides associated services for secure information exchange, and data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide. GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Smith Files Prisoner Rights Suit --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against officers of the Harris County Prison. The case is styled as Bobby Smith and Clifford Fairfax, on their own and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ed Gonzales, Sheriff of Harris County, John Doe, I, Chief of Harris County, Texas Jail, Harris County Texas Officials and Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-03312 (S.D., Tex., Sept. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights. The Defendants are government representatives in the performance of their official duties.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. HILTON WORLDWIDE: Cosinteno Appeals D.P.R. Ruling to 1st Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Brandon Cosinteno filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Cosinteno v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01858-SCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, San Juan. The nature of the suit is stated as Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Cosinteno v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1908, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance form and Docketing Statement are due on October 7, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON COSINTENO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jane A. Becker Whitaker, Esq. Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq. BECKER VISSEPO PSC 1225 Ponce de Leon, Ste. 1102 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (787) 585-3824 E-mail: info@beckervissepo.com - and - Brandon McCaull Bohlman, Esq. John Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Ste. 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Katherine W. Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com kvandyck@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S, Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com Defendants-Appellees HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. and ESJ RESORT, LLC are represented by: Ana Maria Cristina Perez Soto, Esq. JONES DAY 600 Brickell Ave., Ste. 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 714-9700 E-mail: cperezsoto@jonesday.com - and - Manuel A. Pietrantoni, Esq. MARINI PIETRANTONI MUNIZ LLC 250 Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 900 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 705-2174 E-mail: mpietrantoni@mpmlawpr.com - and - Leslie Yvette Flores-Rodriguez, Esq. MCCONNELL VALDES LLC 270 Munoz Rivera Ave. PO Box 364225 San Juan, PR 00936-4225 Telephone: (787) 250-5628 E-mail: lfr@mcvpr.com HIRE DYNAMICS: Madera Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA MADERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIRE DYNAMICS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03749-JPB (N.D. Ga., Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other workers like her regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a staffing specialist from April 2015 to March 2020. Based in Duluth, Georgia, Hire Dynamics, LLC provides human resource management services throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. Kris Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com - and - James M. Feagle, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-1970 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com HONDA CANADA: Settles Takata Airbag Inflator Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Auto Remarketing Canada reports that on Aug. 31, Honda Canada announced that it reached an agreement to resolve Takata airbag inflator class action litigation in Canada. The automaker said the settlement will further enhance Honda Canada's "significant" efforts to reach and encourage customers to bring their vehicles to authorized dealers for a free airbag inflator replacement. As part of the settlement mentioned in a news release, Honda Canada said it will continue its comprehensive recall efforts. "Honda Canada has taken unprecedented steps to reach owners, in order to expedite the replacement of recalled Takata airbag inflators," the company said. "Honda Canada will continue to take steps to replace recalled inflators in every vehicle on the road that is affected by a Takata airbag inflator recall in an ongoing effort to better assure the safety of vehicle operators and passengers." The OEM emphasized that an ample supply of replacement airbag inflators is readily available to service the remaining affected vehicles. Honda Canada went on to mention the proposed class action settlement also makes provision for the reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Honda Canada customers as a result of the recall. Furthermore, the automaker noted the agreement also sets out continued activities by Honda Canada to recover recalled airbag inflators from scrap sellers through its Takata airbag inflator re-purchase program. Officials added the proposed settlement agreement covers recalled Honda and Acura vehicles (automobiles and Goldwing motorcycles) with Takata airbag inflators. The proposed class action settlement also provides additional service/repair coverage for defective materials or workmanship in non-Takata replacement airbag inflators installed in recalled vehicles. "Honda continues to urge owners of Honda and Acura vehicles affected by the Takata airbag inflator recalls to bring their vehicles to authorized dealers for the recall service as soon as possible," officials said. Honda vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at www.honda.ca/recalls or www.motorcycle.honda.ca/safety/recalls or by calling Honda Canada Customer Relations at (888) 946-6329. Acura vehicle owners can check their vehicles' recall status at www.acura.ca/recalls or by calling or Acura Canada Client Services at (888) 922-8729. For more information on the class action settlement, visit www.hondaairbagsettlement.ca. [GN] HUEGAR LLC: Faces Nunez Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HUEGAR LLC (D/B/A SILVER RICE), HIDEKI KATO, and SONNY DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04482 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful wage deductions. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Silver Rice restaurant as a delivery worker and food preparer from March 15, 2017, until March 22, 2020. Huegar LLC owns, operates, or controls two Japanese Restaurants in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Silver Rice."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com INOVIO PHARMA: Plaintiff in McDermid Suit Files Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the purported shareholder class action styled, McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, has filed an amended complaint, according to Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company said, "On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint, McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming us and J. Joseph Kim, our Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that we made materially false and misleading statements regarding our development of a vaccine for COVID-19 in our public disclosures in violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On June 18, 2020, the court appointed Manuel Williams to serve as lead plaintiff. On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming us and three of our officers as defendants." Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products. Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. INTEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over 7nm Processor Delay ------------------------------------------------------- Rob Thubron, writing for Techspot, reports that Intel's year isn't getting any better after revealing its 7nm process would be delayed by six months, knocking around 16 percent off its share price and wiping $43 billion off the company's market cap. Now, Chipzilla is facing a class-action lawsuit for investors fraud. Intel's revenue was up 20 percent in its Q2 2020 earnings report, but its 7nm processors have been delayed by at least six months because production has fallen a year behind. The subsequent decline in share price resulted in AMD's stock jumping above its rival's for the first time in around 15 years. On July 24, the Hagens Berman law firm put out a call to Intel investors who suffered significant losses to contact the company for a possible class-action suit. It also seeks people who may be able to assist in its investigation of possible securities fraud. "Beginning at the Company's 2019 annual investor conference, Intel continuously represented that it would start shipping its first 7nm chips in 2021. The news was well-received since the Company claimed the 7nm chip would deliver double the area efficiency of its 10nm chips. Moreover, in the wake of severe delays derailing its 10nm chips, Intel assuaged concerns by stating, "We've made time-to-market the priority," and repeatedly affirmed the 7nm chip's timetable," states Hagens Berman. But in its recent earnings call, Intel CEO Bob Swan said the company had identified a "defect mode" in its 7nm process that caused yield degradation issues. As a result, Intel has invested in "contingency plans," which Swan later defined as including using third-party foundries, all of which means its 7nm chips won't hit the market until 2021 or 2022. The law firm is now investigating whether Intel misrepresented and concealed manufacturing and performance issues with its 7nm chips. It's also asking whistleblowers with non-public information on Intel to get in touch. "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," it states. Like all billion (and trillion) dollar companies, Intel constantly faces a slew of lawsuits. In addition to alleged patent infringements, the company is dealing with several related to the Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities. Misleading investors is a serious allegation, just ask Nvidia, which has been battling against a similar lawsuit -- which relates to misreporting mining GPU sales -- since 2017. [GN] IWC HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hernandez-Conde Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER HERNANDEZ-CONDE and FRANCISCO DELGADO, et al. v. IWC HOLDINGS OF TEXAS, LLC, d/b/a BUILDER'S INSULATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-01118 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant to work manual labor, allege that the Defendant willfully and regularly denied them and their co-workers overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek and the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour labor they performed. The Defendant also failed to establish and pay them a set hourly rate, and failed to timely pay them for their work performed, the Plaintiffs assert. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages and liquidated damages because of the unlawful pay practice of the Defendant. IWC Holdings of Texas, LLC, d/b/a Builder's Insulation, provides installing insulation services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan B. Lange, Esq. EVAN LANGE LAW, PLLC 14015 Southwest Fwy., #14 Sugar Land, TX 77478 Tel: (713) 909-4558 E-mail: evan@evanlangelaw.com J2 GLOBAL: Bid for Class Notice Pending in Davis Neurology Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The j2 Global, Inc. affiliates in the class action suit initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A. have opposed the Plaintiff's bid for approval of class notice, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class action lawsuit against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2 Global affiliates. On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return the case to state court. On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case was remanded to the Arkansas state court. On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016. Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order. On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On November 26, 2019 the court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On December 20, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. On May 21, 2020, the court denied J2 Global affiliates' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed a notice for approval of class notice, which the J2 Global affiliates have opposed. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media. The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc. and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2 Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Securities Class Action in California Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ j2 Global, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Jeffrey Garcia alleging violations of federal securities laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action lawsuit against J2 Global in the Central District of California (20-cv-06906), alleging violations of federal securities laws. J2 Global intends to defend against the lawsuit. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media. The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc. and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2 Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. KILWINS CHOCOLATES: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------ Kilwins Chocolates Franchise, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kilwins Chocolates Franchise, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07850 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Kilwins Chocolates Franchise, Inc. is a candy and ice cream franchise.[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 LOUISIANA: Bar Owners Mull Class Action Over Second Shutdown ------------------------------------------------------------ Acadia Parish Today reports that Louisiana bar owners are planning to file a class-action law suit against the state. The suit stems from Governor John Bel Edwards requiring all bars to shut down a second time. A number of bar owners from across Acadiana recently met with lawyers at Quarter Tavern Bar in New Iberia to discuss the lawsuit. Ty Boudoin, the owner of Quarter Tavern, has been quoted as saying, "We're having as many local bar owners as we can get together. We have people here from Terrebonne parish, Lafayette parish, Iberia parish." According to Boudoin, he and other bar owners met with Governor Edwards' attorneys about re-opening bars, but the meeting was not productive. "We tried working with them. They don't want to work with us, so we feel like this is our next step- the only step we can take," he said. Boudoin says he started working on the class action suit the Monday after Governor Edwards said all bars had to shut down again. "He said on TV the good wouldn't have to suffer for the bad, so why are we shut down? As you can see, 90% of my business is outside and yet he couldn't give me an answer about why we're closed," Boudoin added. The bar owners say all they want out of the lawsuit is to be allowed to open. Boudoin stated, "We're not taking money or anything out of this. All we want to do is open back up and be on the same playing field as everybody else. I can go to a restaurant right now. I can go to a casino. I can go to a bowling alley and sit at a bar and drink, yet you can't come to a bar and sit outside and drink." Anyone interested in joining the lawsuit can contact Boudoin at 337-578-5298. [GN] M&M WINES CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA -------------------------------------------------- M&M Wines Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&M Wines Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07859 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). M&M Wines Corp. is engaged in the winery industry.[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 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Wash. Nationals Catcher Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that major League Baseball was hit with a proposed class action on July 27 by Washington Nationals catcher Felipe "Tres" Barrera III who alleges he was suspended after falsely testing positive for the steroid Oral Turinabol. Barrera asserts he was wrongfully suspended for 80 games after testing positive for the substance, also known as Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone or DHCMT. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of major and minor league baseball players who were suspended based on a positive test for DHCMT -- a test the complaint alleges to be "junk science." The league violated the rights of each class member by wrongfully and knowingly misrepresenting the accuracy and reliability of the DHCMT test, "even though objective evidence proves those tests to be unreliable," the complaint alleges. The complaint seeks to set aside and vacate the July 24 arbitration ruling suspending Barrera, and it asks for an injunction prohibiting the league from carrying out the suspension. The arbitrator "wholly ignored, and did not properly consider, the irrefutable evidence in the record," that the test is clearly unreliable -- even to a casual observer, the complaint alleges. The complaint alleges that other non-prohibited substances can mimic the same metabolite created by DHCMT and that the league disregarded this. Causes of Action: Fraud, negligence. Relief: Injunctive relief, damages, attorneys fees, and costs. Potential Class Size: The complaint doesn't specify the number of proposed class members suspended for testing positive to DHCMT. Response: MLB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys: Kennard Law PC represents Barrera. The case is Barrera v. Major League Baseball, S.D. Tex., No. 20-cv-00198, 7/27/20. [GN] MARRIOTT INT'L: 2008 Data Breach Suits Underway in U.S. and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marriott International, Inc. continues to face lawsuits in the U.S. and in Canada regarding a 2018 data security incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations database, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company said, "Following our announcement of the Data Security Incident, approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and others against us in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts related to the incident. All but one of the U.S. cases were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL"). The plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally purport to represent various classes of consumers, generally claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by the Company in connection with the Data Security Incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief. "Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a putative class action lawsuit that was filed against us and certain of our current officers and directors on December 1, 2018, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with statements regarding our cybersecurity systems and controls, and seeking certification of a class of affected persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief. "The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019, respectively, against the Company, certain of its officers and certain current and former members of our Board of Directors, alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and violations of the federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified monetary damages and restitution, changes to the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief. "A third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company and certain of its officers and certain current and former members of our Board of Directors, alleging claims and seeking relief generally similar to the claims made and relief sought in the other two derivative cases. This case will not be consolidated with the MDL proceeding. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuits and are vigorously defending against such claims. We have filed motions to dismiss several of these cases, some of which have been denied, but the cases generally remain at an early stage. "There has been some consolidation of the Canadian cases, with five cases now pending across five provinces, and we expect there could be further consolidation in the future. "In addition, in April 2019, we received a letter purportedly on behalf of a shareholder of the Company (also one of the named plaintiffs in the putative securities class action) demanding that our Board of Directors take action against the Company's current and certain former officers and directors to recover damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and related claims arising from the Data Security Incident. The Board of Directors has constituted a demand review committee to investigate the claims made in the demand letter, and the committee has retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation. The committee's investigation is ongoing. "In addition, numerous U.S. federal, U.S. state and foreign governmental authorities are investigating, or otherwise seeking information and/or documents related to, the Data Security Incident and related matters, including Attorneys General offices from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, certain committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the Information Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom (the "ICO") as lead supervisory authority in the European Economic Area, and regulatory authorities in various other jurisdictions. "In July 2019, the ICO issued a formal notice of intent under the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 proposing a fine in the amount of GBP99 million against the Company in relation to the Data Security Incident (the "Proposed ICO Fine"). In late August 2019, we submitted a written response to the ICO vigorously defending our position, and we have continued to engage with the ICO regarding the Data Security Incident and Proposed ICO Fine. We mutually agreed with the ICO to an extension of the regulatory process until September 30, 2020 and the ICO proceeding is ongoing. Our accrual for this loss contingency, which we present in the "Accrued expenses and other" caption of our Balance Sheets, of US$65 million at December 31, 2019, remained unchanged at June 30, 2020. "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we may incur additional losses associated with the proceedings and investigations related to the Data Security Incident, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of the amounts already incurred that might result from adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, or other resolution of these proceedings and investigations based on the current stage of these proceedings and investigations, the absence of specific allegations as to alleged damages, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or classes and the size of any certified class, if applicable, and/or the lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues." MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action in London Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Travel Weekly reports that Marriott International is set to face a lawsuit in London by millions of former guests who had their personal records hacked between 2014 and 2018. Martin Bryant, who is the founder of technology and media consultancy Big Revolution, is leading the claim for British and Welsh-based guests who made a reservation for one of the former Starwood brand hotels. He believes there should be "recompense" for the breach which, according to Reuters, saw more than 300 million customer records -- which potentially included their passport and credit card details -- from Marriott's global database hacked between 2014 and 2018. "If a major corporation suffers a breach because it didn't do everything it could to protect your data, and the worst it suffers is a fine for breaking data protection rules, there's little incentive for anything to really change," Bryant wrote in a blog post. "But if the company becomes accountable to the customers whose data they lost, it's a different matter." Reuters reported that around seven million British guest records were compromised by the hack, according to the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which last year reportedly proposed to fine Marriott £99.2 million (more than $179 million). The action, which is backed by law firm Hausfeld and funded by litigation funder Harbour, seeks compensation on behalf of hotel guests who made reservations at hotel brands within the Starwood group, including Sheraton Hotels & Resorts and St. Regis hotels, before 10 September 2018. Like millions of others, Bryant said he only received a notification in late 2018 informing him that Marriott believed his data was part of the breach. "As our lives become increasingly digital, our personal data will only become more important," he said. "It's time we all as a society valued it more. That's what I hope this case will achieve. I look forward to updating you as it progresses." Travel Weekly has contacted Marriott International for comment. [GN] MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL: Beinbrech Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JASON BEINBRECH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2016242, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 23, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01971 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, not timely paid final wages, not timely paid wages during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices. Matthews International Corporation is a provider of brand solutions, memorialization products and industrial technologies, with its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer C. Terry, Esq. Mona A. Razani, Esq. Corrie J. Buck, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: jterry@reedsmith.com mrazani@reedsmith.com cbuck@reedsmith.com MDL 2971: Transfer of 10 Class Suits to E.D. New York Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the multidistrict litigation styled In re: Bank of Nova Scotia Precious Metals Futures Litigation, MDL No. 2971, Plaintiff Mark Serri, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asks the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer 10 actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The actions have been filed against the Defendants, Bank of Nova Scotia and certain of its subsidiaries and employees, for manipulating the prices of precious metals futures contracts through a practice known as "spoofing." All of these related actions allege that the Defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures contracts from at least January 2008 through at least July 2016. The Plaintiff contends that the centralization of the related actions will promote the goals of 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 by conserving judicial resources, reducing litigation costs, preventing potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, eliminating duplicative discovery, and permitting the cases to proceed more efficiently. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. David Rochelson, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com DRochelson@RobinsKaplan.com MEDMARK SERVICES: Walsh Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jimmy Walsh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MedMark Services, Inc., Defendant, was transferred from the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County with the assigned Case No. C20-01535 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 23, 2020, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-06682. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other. Medmark Services, Inc. provides addiction treatment and primary healthcare services. The Company offers outpatient medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction utilizing methadone and buprenorphine, as well as primary care and internal medicine services. Medmark Services serves patients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Hansel Kleine, Esq. Cooley LLP 101 California Street, 5th Fl San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 693-2000 Fax: (415) 693-2222 Email: bkleine@cooley.com MIDWAY ARMS: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------- Midway Arms, 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. Midway Arms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07869 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Midway Arms, Inc. operates as a catalog and internet retailer. The Company retails shooting, hunting, and outdoor products. Midway Arms offers ammunition, archery, auto, books, videos and software, camping and survival, clothing, footwear, gifts, gun parts, hunting gears, knives and tools, military gears, optics, reloading supplies, self defense, and police products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendant 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 MINNEAPOLIS: Police Sued Over Use of Force Against Protesters ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Thomsen, writing for Law.com, reports that the ACLU of Minnesota and attorneys with Fish & Richardson are teaming up for a class action lawsuit against Minneapolis and city police officials over injuries suffered by protesters demonstrating in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. "This unnecessarily forceful treatment of protesters, at the expense of proper constitutional protections, casts a pall over future protests and cannot continue," the lawsuit reads. [GN] MOSES H. CONE: Ellis Winters Atty. Discusses Ruling in "Chambers" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph D. Hammond, Esq., of Ellis Winters, reports that in baseball's version of the "pick-off," a baserunner is caught standing too far from base and tagged out. In the legal world, defendants sometimes "pick off" a class action by mooting the named plaintiff's individual claim before a class has been certified. A recent opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court has restricted--but not eliminated--one of these maneuvers. Read on to find out which. The case is Chambers v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 372 N.C. 100, 824 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. 2020). The plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of himself and others whom a hospital allegedly overcharged. After the class complaint was filed, the hospital dismissed its claims for unpaid bills against the plaintiff with prejudice. Since the plaintiff owed nothing -- and had not paid on the alleged overcharges -- the hospital moved to dismiss the class complaint, arguing the case was moot. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed, and the plaintiff was called "out." The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed [the call]. Over a dissent from Justice Newby, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could continue with the case. Looking to federal cases, especially Richardson v. Bledsoe, 829 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2016), the Court held that a plaintiff whose individual claim is mooted by the defendant's action may continue to represent a putative class where 1) the mooting event occurred before the plaintiff had a fair opportunity to seek class certification and 2) the plaintiff has not "unduly delayed" litigating class certification. Where these conditions apply, the normal rule -- that a plaintiff who lacks a personal stake in the outcome may not pursue a case -- does not apply, and the plaintiff may seek class certification and a ruling on the merits. The Chambers exception operates by "relating back" the plaintiff's claim, for mootness purposes, to the filing of the complaint. Thus, the exception does not change the requirement that the plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome -- i.e., be on base -- when the complaint is filed. Following Chambers, class action defendants in North Carolina can only pick off a class action where the named plaintiff has had the fair opportunity to seek class certification and unduly delayed that process. It remains to be seen, however, just how much time "fair opportunity" requires, and what the plaintiff must do to avoid a finding of undue delay. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for adjudication of these questions, but provided the following insight: "[t]he question of what constitutes a fair opportunity in this context naturally will vary from case to case based on considerations such as the complexity of the case, the nature of discovery required to determine class certification, the stage at which the named plaintiff's individual claims become moot, and other relevant factors." op. at 19. "[t]o act diligently, a named plaintiff need not file a class-certification motion with the complaint or prematurely; it is enough that the named plaintiff diligently takes any necessary discovery, complies with any applicable local rules and scheduling orders, and acts without undue delay." op. at 20 (citing Stein v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, 772 F.3d 698, 707 (11th Cir. 2014)). It also remains to be seen whether -- and how -- plaintiffs who lack a personal stake in the outcome of a case can satisfy the requirement that the class representative adequately represent the interests of the class. As the dissent notes, the North Carolina Supreme Court has previously directed that class representatives must "have a genuine personal interest, not a mere technical interest, in the outcome of the case." Faulkenbury v. Teachers and State Emps.' Ret. Sys. of N.C., 345 N.C. 683, 697, 483 S.E.2d 422, 431 (1997). And the majority opinion recognizes that "obtaining class certification still requires [the named plaintiff] to meet the stringent requirements of Rule 23" and cites Faulkenbury for those prerequisites. Thus, the question remains: could potential class representatives whose claims are moot be ruled safe at first base and called out at second? It will be interesting to watch how courts apply this exception to mootness and whether plaintiffs delay moving for class certification in reliance upon it. It will also be interesting to see whether courts will apply similar principles outside mootness to the requirements for class certification. Stay tuned for more developments. [GN] MYOS RENS TECHNOLOGY: Faasse Balks at $173-Mil. MedAvail Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Faasse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MYOS RENS TECHNOLOGY INC., JOSEPH MANNELLO, REN REN, ROBERT J. HARIRI, LOUIS ARONNE, CHRISTOPHER PECHOCK, VICTOR MANDEL, ERIC ZALTAS, CHRISTOPHER C. DEWEY, ANDREW PONTE, MEDAVAIL, INC., MATRIX MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 654644/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Sept. 23, 2020), alleges that MYOS's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a definitive merger agreement between MYOS and MedAvail in a transaction valued at approximately $173 million. The Defendants entered into the Merger Agreement on June 30, 2020, and filed on Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission also on June 30. The Proposed Transaction is expected to close December 31, 2020. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, substantially all of the assets and liabilities of MYOS (except as specifically excluded) will be contributed to a subsidiary of MYOS prior to the closing of the Proposed Transaction and the shares of the subsidiary will be distributed as a dividend immediately subsequent to the closing of the Proposed Transaction to those MYOS shareholders of record as of prior to the closing of the Proposed Transaction. The combined company will focus on advancing MedAvail's network of in-clinic pharmacies within Medicare sites across the U.S., while the current MYOS muscle health business will be spun off as a private unaffiliated company. MedAvail will pay the spun-out business $2 million in cash upon the closing of the Merger and issue a promissory note for an additional $3 million, payable in installments within one year of the closing of the Merger. Despite this description, the Plaintiff asserts, it is in fact impossible to glean from the any publicly released documentation related to the Proposed Transaction, an estimate of the value, in U.S. Dollars, of the consideration that the Plaintiff or other public stockholders of MYOS are set to receive Thereafter, on September 3, 2020, MYOS filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Individual the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction based on a flawed process which will result in grossly inadequate compensation for shareholders. As such, the Plaintiff and the other public shareholders of MYOS common stock are entitled to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, alternatively, to recover damages in the event that the transaction is consummated. In further violation of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient Registration Statement on September 3, 2020, with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their MYOS shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, according to the complaint. The Registration Statement is materially deficient, deprives MYOS stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, and is, thus, in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties. The Registration Statement omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b) the financial projections for MYOS and MedAvail, utilized in any financial analyses purporting to support the Proposed Transaction, if any; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial analyses purporting to support the Proposed Transaction, if any, performed by MYOS, MYOS's financial advisor H.C. Wainwright & Co., MedAvail, or some other third party. In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell MYOS without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to benefit themselves and/or MedAvail without regard for MYOS public stockholders, says the complaint. Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and compel the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to MYOS stockholders. The Plaintiff owns shares of MYOS common stock. MYOS focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of nutritional ingredients, functional foods, and other technologies that enhance muscle health and performance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: (516)741-4977 Facsimile (561)741-0626 Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com NEW YORK: Bill & Ted's Suit Challenges COVID-19 Executive Orders ---------------------------------------------------------------- BILL & TED'S RIVIERA, INC.; and PARTITION STREET PROJECT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ANDREW M. CUOMO; LETITIA JAMES; GREELEY T. FORD; EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01991-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020), is a civil rights action for legal and equitable remedies challenging certain executive orders issued in connection with the COVID-19 crisis. The executive orders were issued by Defendant New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and enforced by him and Defendants New York State Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Liquor Authority Commissioner Greeley T. Ford and the New York State Liquor Authority. The lawsuit also challenges certain rules and regulations promulgated by Defendant Empire State Development Corporation in connection with the executive orders. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have imposed and selectively enforce orders in pursuit of the State's stated goal of "social distancing" and have caused a "lockdown" and unprecedented interruption of virtually every aspect of the social, political, religious and economic life of New York State's over 19 million residents. Under the pretext of public health, the restrictions are imposed widely and ostensibly universally. However, upon scrutiny, it is revealed that the executive orders leak like a sieve, and Defendants have carved out numerous exceptions in an arbitrary and capricious manner according to their own political preferences and value judgments, the Plaintiffs allege. The Defendants have enforced their "lockdown" by threat of criminal prosecution and administrative punishment, including $1,000 per-day fines for the novel offense of violating Cuomo's "Social Distancing Protocol" ("SDP"), the Plaintiffs note. Further, restaurants and food service establishments are subject to summary suspension or revocation of their liquor licenses and exorbitant fines of up to $10,000 per violation. Empire State Development is the umbrella organization for New York's two principal economic development public-benefit corporations, the New York State Urban Development Corporation and the New York Job Development Authority.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Anthony Rupp III, Esq. Phillip A. Oswald, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM 25 Walton Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Telephone: (518) 886-1902 E-mail: oswald@ruppbaase.com rupp@ruppbaase.com NORTON HEALTHCARE: Class Certification for 15K Participants Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that participants in Norton Healthcare Inc.'s retirement plan want their lawsuit challenging the plan's fees and investment options certified as a class action covering 15,000 people, according to a court filing in the Western District of Kentucky. Donna Disselkamp's July 24 class certification motion comes one year after a federal judge allowed her to move forward with nearly all claims in her seven-count lawsuit alleging retirement plan mismanagement under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Disselkamp now wants to represent a class of more than 15,000 people who invested in Norton's $900 million retirement plan since 2012. [GN] NPC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Marshall Suit Over Unfair Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN MARSHALL, for herself and all others similarly situated v. JONATHAN WEBER, DAVID WAHLERT, and LAVONNE WALBERT, Case No. 4:20-cv-00757-NKL (W.D. Mo., Sept. 23, 2020), seeks to redress the Defendants' systematic policy and practice of paying delivery drivers hourly wages well below the minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Defendants Jonathan Weber, David Wahlert, and Lavonne Walbert are officers of NPC International, Inc., a Pizza Hut franchisee, directly responsible for that Company's practices and policies related to its reimbursement of Pizza Hut delivery drivers for their vehicle-related expenses. The FLSA and state minimum wage laws require employers to provide their employees with sufficient reimbursements for employment-related expenses to ensure that employees' hourly wages equal or exceed the required minimum wage after such expenses are counted against the hourly wages, according to the complaint. However, the Defendants, through the policies and practices they promulgated and controlled at NPC International, Inc., under-reimbursed the Plaintiff and her colleagues for vehicular wear and tear, gas, and other driving-related expenses, thereby, effectively paying her well below the minimum wage, with NPC pocketing excess profits rather than fairly paying Defendants' employees. The Plaintiff worked as a full-time delivery driver from January 2010 to January 2015 for the Defendants at their NPC Pizza Hut store located in Belleville, Illinois. The multi-state claim is asserted by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons employed as delivery drivers at any store owned by NPC in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia, and Washington during the maximum allowable limitations periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Kinsman, Esq. KRAUSE & KINSMAN, LLC 4717 Grand Ave., #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 760-2700 Facsimile: (816) 760-2800 E-mail: robert@krauseandkinsman.com - and - Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Andrew C. White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Michael Marrese, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Seth A. Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5200 - and - Warren Postman, Esq. 1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 749-8334 - and - Nicholas F. Kajon, Esq. STEVENS & LEE, P.C. 485 Madison Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 537-0403 NUTANIX INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Putative Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nutanix, Inc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2020, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss a consolidated putative class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been denied. Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and two of its officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint"). The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, and the court granted that motion on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Current Complaint"), again naming the company and two of its officers as defendants. The Current Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Current Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On May 22, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Current Complaint, which was denied on September 11, 2020. Nutanix said, "The litigation is still in early stages, and we plan to continue to vigorously defend against the allegations and we are not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the Current Complaint." Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. ONE GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE ONE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07864-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff contends that during his visits to the Web site, http://www.stksteakhouse.com/,the last occurring in September 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to access barriers on the Web site that have deterred him from learning about various steaks for purchase and delivery, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals. 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 One Group, LLC, is a steakhouse and retail company, and owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the Company ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal ORACLE: Faces Class Action in Netherlands Over Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Haim Ravia, Esq., Dotan Hammer, Esq., and Adi Shoval, Esq., of Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz, in an article for Mondaq, report that the Privacy Collective, a Dutch consumer privacy non-profit organization, brought a class-action lawsuit in the Netherlands against tech giants Oracle and Salesforce, alleging that their practices in placing third party cookies to help track and target internet users breach privacy laws. The lawsuit seeks EUR500 in compensatory damages for each user who did not consent to use of their sensitive personal data. The total aggregate value of the lawsuit may amount to EUR10 billion due to the large volume of potentially affected data subjects. A similar case is expected to be filed in the United Kingdom. Both Oracle and Salesforce denied the allegations and said that they implemented a GDPR compliance policy to protect users' personal data. [GN] PAPERLESS INC: West Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paperless Inc. The case is captioned as Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Paperless Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07366-ER (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos. Paperless Inc. is a New York-based company, which is part of the office supply and paper wholesalers industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com PEEL ACCESSORIES: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. PEEL ACCESSORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07796-ER (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff asserts that during his visits to the Defendant's Web site at http://www.buypeel.com/,the last occurring on August 11, 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Web site, as well as to the facilities, goods, and services of the Defendant's retail operations. Due to the inaccessibility of the Web site, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination as access barriers have deterred him from taking advantage of the Defendant's services and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Peel Accessories LLC is an online retailer of cell phone cases and accessories. Through the Web site, customers can purchase items, such as iPhone and Android phone cases, iPad cases, wallets, and similar items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Potential Class Action Withdrawn ---------------------------------------------------------- B Communications Ltd. in its Form 6-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that on July 27, 2020, Bezeq The Israel Telecommunication Corporation Ltd. ("Bezeq"), a 26.34% subsidiary of B Communications Ltd. (the "Company"), reported to the Israel Securities Authority (the "ISA") and Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (the "TASE") that a motion for approval of a class action lawsuit against Bezeq's subsidiary, Pelephone Communications Ltd. ("Pelephone") has been withdrawn, and the personal claim of the relevant plaintiffs has been dismissed. The lawsuit had alleged that Pelephone and other companies had marketed and / or provided cellular service to cellular devices manufactured by Xiaomi from which it was not possible to call the emergency numbers in Israel. Bezeq hereby updates Section 3.16.1(L) in the chapter describing Bezeq's business in Bezeq's annual report for 2019. Bezeq reports that on July 26, 2020 a ruling was given in the Central District Court approving a motion by agreement to withdraw a motion for approval of a class action against Bezeq's subsidiary, Pelephone Communications Ltd. ("Pelephone"), and to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal claim against Pelephone. The claim had alleged that Pelephone and other companies had marketed and/or provided cellular service to cellular devices manufactured by Xiaomi from which it was not possible to call the emergency numbers in Israel. [GN] PENN MUTUAL: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Cochran Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Cochran v. The Penn Mutual Life Insurance, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00564-JPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuit is a putative securities class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the Defendant. The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Cochran v. The Penn Mutual Life Insurance, et al., Case No. 20-13477, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before October 9, 2020, as to Appellee The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY A. COCHRAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: David Andrew Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1230 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA Telephone: (404) 724-9990 E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com - and - Roy E. Barnes, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta St. Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq. David J. Worley, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 500 Sugar Mill Rd., Ste. 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Jay Forbes Hirsch, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY 3391 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 E-mail: efile@pmkm.com kimjohnson@pmkm.com efile@pmkm.com - and - Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY 1200 6th Ave. Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 324-0050 E-mail: efile@pmkm.com Defendants-Appellees THE PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and HORNOR TOWNSEND & KENT, LLC are represented by: Stephen D. Councill, Esq. Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq. COUNCILL & GUNNEMANN LLC 1201 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 100 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 522-4700 E-mail: sdc@rh-law.com jgunnemann@rh-law.com - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq. Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (215) 963-5387 E-mail: laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com john.lavelle@morganlewis.com marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Must Face Expanded Fishermen's Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sebastien Malo, writing for Reuters, reports that a pipeline operator must face an expanded class action lawsuit by fishermen who blame the company for losses following its role in a 2015 oil spill in California after a federal appeals court canned the operator's bid to reverse the class' widening. A two-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Plains denied Plains All American Pipeline's challenge of a lower court order acquiescing to include plaintiffs from a broader geographical area, who are looking at a sixfold increase in damages, up to $185.6 million. [GN] PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits over Line 901 Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. continues to defend lawsuits related to a crude oil release in May 2015 from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company said, "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we have been processing those claims and making payments as appropriate. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release. "The court originally certified three sub-classes of claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the certification of one of the three sub-classes, the oil-industry sub-class, and the District Court subsequently dismissed the oil-industry sub-class representatives' claims. The two remaining sub-classes include (i) commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters off the coast of Southern California or persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and (ii) residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential properties with a private easement to a beach where oil from the spill washed up. The court has set a trial date of September 1, 2020 for those two sub-classes, but the trial is unlikely to proceed on that date due to COVID-19 related trial suspensions. "We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages." PRINCESS CRUISES: Ruby Princess Passengers File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ali Coulton, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that passengers involved in the Ruby Princess debacle have filed a class action against princess cruises, claiming the line breached Australian consumer law. The action was filed by Shine Lawyers through the Federal Court on behalf of passengers and their families. The firm said all 2,700 passengers who disembarked the ship in Circular Quay on 19 March 2020 are eligible to join the class action, as well as relatives who have suffered mentally from the cruise's aftermath and executors and administrators of deceased passengers' estates. Class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said it is alleged the cruise line broke Australian consumer laws by breaching consumer guarantees and by engaging in conduct that was misleading and deceptive. It is also alleged the line was negligent and failed in its duty of care to provide passengers with a safe cruise. "We say the owner and operator knew of the risks that passengers may contract coronavirus before the ship left and they failed to take steps to ensure their passengers were safe and protected," Antzoulatos said. "People on board the ship trusted Carnival to do the right thing but they were not told about the risk of coronavirus and some paid the ultimate price for it. "More than 20 people have died, many remain gravely ill, while others struggle daily with the grief of having lost a loved one or having to care for a very sick relative." Class action group member Graeme Lake, whose wife Karla died from coronavirus 10-days after returning home from the cruise, called on Princess Cruises to take responsibility. "It broke me, it broke the kids, and she didn't deserve it," Lake said. "Karla went on that cruise to celebrate her 75th birthday and what happened to her has destroyed us. I am doing everything I can to get justice." Princess Cruises told Travel Weekly that it does not intend to comment on "the assertions of class action lawyers". "The NSW Special Commission of Inquiry, in which we are participating, is in the process of establishing the facts in relation to Ruby Princess," the line said. At least 22 deaths and hundreds of cases of COVID-19 can be linked to the ship. A Special Commission of Inquiry into Ruby Princess was expected to deliver its findings last August. [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Faces Suit over Specialty Property Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- ProAssurance Corporation is facing a putative class action in Alabama related to allegedly false and misleading statements the Company made regarding its Specialty Property and Casualty segment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The lawsuit was filed in June 2020 in the Northern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ProAssurance said, "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter." PURDUE PHARMA: City of Vermilion to Join Opioid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Rodges, writing for WOIO, reports that the City of Vermilion is expected to join a class-action lawsuit against Purdue Pharma. The city's Mayor, Jim Forthofer, brought the issue up in a city council meeting on Aug. 3. According to city officials, the lawsuit takes into account the cost of past and future damages. The lawsuit is estimated to be around $6 million. Mayor Forthofer said that he believes the opioids sold by Purdue Pharma directly negatively affected the community impacting the way the ongoing opioid crisis impacted the city's residents. He also stated that marketing improperly sheds light on opioids, and they, directly and indirectly, impacted the community. Purdue Pharma had to deal out over $250 million in a federal lawsuit filed last year. [GN] QUANTA SERVICES: Faces $8.8MM Damages in Suit vs Former Unit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case styled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., the trial court has determined the amount of liability for TNS to be approximately US$8.8 million, according to Quanta Services, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment and other motions and a bench trial on liability and damages was held. The Company said, "As of July 2020, liability and damages for significantly all claims had been determined by the trial court, with the amount of liability for TNS determined to be approximately US$8.8 million. This amount includes damages and interest though the date of the trial court's orders, but does not include attorneys' fees or costs, which are yet to be determined. Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter." Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. RECON OILFIELD: McDaniel Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORY MCDANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.; and TRIPLE J OILFIELD SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04497-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 31, 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. Plaintiff McDaniel was employed by the Defendants as machine operator. Recon Oilfield Services, Inc. is a full service pressure testing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com REVERB.COM LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Graciano Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDY GRACIANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. REVERB.COM LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07813-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Defendant's Web site at https://reverb.com/, the last occurring in August 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied him the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Web site by being unable to purchase music instruments and accessories. The Defendant's actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the Plaintiff and the class on the basis of a disability in violation of the state laws, according to the complaint. Reverb.com LLC operates the Reverb online retail store across the United States. The Company's Web site provides consumers with access to an array of goods including information about purchasing music instruments and accessories such as guitars, drums, keyboards, speaker systems, headphones and other products available online for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, creating an online account, ordering merchandise and return and privacy policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com REWALK ROBOTICS: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Yan Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on August 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") as well as Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 against a medical robotics company (the "Company") as well as certain of its officers. Yan v. ReWalk RoboticsLtd., et al., No. 19-1614, 2020 WL 5014858 (1st Cir. Aug. 25, 2020). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false or misleading statements and omissions in its IPO registration statement (the "Registration Statement") and subsequent quarterly and annual disclosures concerning its dealings with the Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") regarding one of the Company's devices. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Securities Act claims, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege a material misstatement or omission. Although it disagreed with the district court's reasoning in dismissing the Exchange Act claims for lack of standing, the First Circuit nevertheless found that the Exchange Act claims were properly dismissed because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a material misstatement or scienter. The Company designs and manufactures robotic exoskeletons that offer greater mobility to individuals with spinal cord injuries, including an exoskeleton that is intended for use in a home or general community setting ("the device"). The device is subject to regulation by the FDA, which approved the device so long as the Company conducted a post-market surveillance study of the safety of the device outside institutional settings. Although the safety of the device had been demonstrated in institutional settings, such as hospitals and rehabilitation centers, there was limited data on its safety in the home or community settings—the intended environment for the device. The FDA ordered the Company to submit the proposed study plan for approval and begin the study within fifteen months. Upon submitting the proposed study plan for approval, but before receiving FDA approval of that plan, the Company issued its Registration Statement and a month later went public. The Registration Statement allegedly touted the device as, among other things, a "breakthrough product" with "compelling clinical data," but noted that the FDA had ordered the performance of a post-market surveillance study and failure to comply may result in the device's removal from the market. According to plaintiffs, the Company missed certain deadlines for submitting plans for its post-market surveillance study, and, when it did submit such plans, the FDA deemed them inadequate. As a result, one year after its IPO, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Company, stating (1) that the Company had not made satisfactory progress towards commencing an approved post-market surveillance study, (2) the device was "misbranded" under the Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and (3) the Company would be sanctioned if it did not take corrective action. In the year between the IPO and its receipt of the warning letter, the Company allegedly did not disclose that the FDA was dissatisfied with the Company's progress towards commencing the study. And in subsequent quarterly and annual disclosures, the Company allegedly continued to tout the device and assure investors it was making progress in commencing the post-market study. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company waited six months after receiving the warning letter to disclose it to the public, doing so just days before the FDA was scheduled to make the letter public. In January 2017, plaintiffs filed the proposed class action complaint focusing only on alleged misrepresentations in the Registration Statement. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to disclose sufficient information concerning the reasoning for the FDA's order mandating a post-market surveillance study. In August 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint to include claims under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, further alleging that the Company failed to disclose the FDA's dissatisfaction with its progress towards commencing its study. The district court dismissed the Securities Act claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements or omissions. The district court similarly dismissed the Exchange Act claims, holding that (1) lead plaintiff purchased his securities well before the Company made the alleged misstatements or omissions, and (2) lead plaintiff, after the supplemental briefing, had not plausibly alleged that a common fraudulent scheme united the alleged misrepresentations in the Registration Statement and those made in public filings and on investor calls after the Company's IPO. The district court further held that, because lead plaintiff's Exchange Act claims failed, he lacked standing to move to amend the complaint to add another lead plaintiff to pursue these claims. The First Circuit initially considered the alleged misrepresentations in the Registration Statement and affirmed the district court's decision that lead plaintiff failed to allege any actionable misstatement or omission. According to lead plaintiff's principal theory of liability, the Company's description of the FDA's evaluation of the device's safety was misleading because "the FDA specifically determined . . . that the device's failure to prevent a fall would be reasonably likely to cause serious injury or death" and, thus, any "boilerplate recitation of the potential adverse regulatory consequences was rendered meaningless." The First Circuit disagreed, finding the cautionary language sufficient, noting that no reasonable investor would conclude that the FDA was concerned with "mere bumps and bruises" when the Registration Statement disclosed that a "user could experience death or serious injury" if the device were to malfunction and that, as a result, the Company needed to "demonstrate reasonable assurance of safety" to the FDA in the device's post-market study. The Court similarly held that other alleged misstatements, such as the Company touting its "compelling clinical data" or "breakthrough device," were inactionable statements of mere puffery. Further, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of any potential claims under Regulation S-K, holding that regardless of whether these claims were adequately pleaded, they failed for the same reason plaintiffs' Section 11 claims failed—the Registration Statement's risk disclosures were adequate. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiff's procedural objection that the district court had improperly dismissed some of the alleged misstatements "sua sponte" relying on the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking statements. The Court held that while "it is sometimes inappropriate for a district court to advance on its own a reason to dismiss a claim," the issue the district court addressed posed a "pure issue of law," plaintiff "lost no chance to marshal any supporting arguments" on appeal, and plaintiff failed to point to anything that he would have added to the appellate record had the Company raised the argument itself. Turning to the Exchange Act claims and the alleged misrepresentations on investor calls after the IPO, the Court held that lead plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the alleged misstatements that occurred months after his purchases of the Company's stock. Agreeing with the district court, the Court held that lead plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged that the Company had "engaged in a 'common scheme' that tied together claimants who purchased in the IPO with claimants who purchased after the IPO." According to the Court, lead plaintiff failed to adequately allege any misstatement or omission in the Registration Statement and, therefore, the Company's repetition of the same alleged misstatements on investor calls after the Company's IPO cannot establish a "common scheme." Accordingly, "even if fraud occurred after the IPO, there is no basis for claiming that it commenced before the IPO." As such, the Court found that the Exchange Act claims "rise or fall . . . on consideration of [the Company's] decision not to disclose the difficulties it was having after the IPO in seeking approval by the FDA for it study plan"—which occurred after lead plaintiff purchased the Company's stock. The Court, therefore, concluded that "it would hardly serve the interests of class members who may have valid claims based on their facts to be represented by a person whose facts dictate he or she will lose the case even if the class members might have won." The Court did, however, disagree with the district court's reasoning in dismissing the Exchange Act claims, which the district court dismissed because lead plaintiff "had no standing to ask the court to do anything at all, including adding a party." While the First Circuit acknowledged that certain cases support this "formalistic approach," it noted that the First Circuit "matter-of-factly" follows the Supreme Court's approach in Sierra Club v. Morton, where the Supreme Court held that although Sierra Club lacked standing, it could amend its complaint to plead new facts that would support standing. 405 U.S. 727, 735, 741 (1972). Citing to cases in the First Circuit "reversing the denial of a motion to amend where the amended pleading established Article III standing by adding facts not contained in prior complaints" and Congress' endorsement of this approach, the First Circuit determined that it "[saw] no reason why this permissiveness does not extend to motions seeking to add a named party asserting the exact same claims that is already pleaded in the complaint." Although the Court disagreed with the district court's standing analysis as it pertained to the Exchange Act claims, the First Circuit nevertheless held that such claims were properly dismissed. In so holding, the Court noted that it has the discretion to affirm a district court's decision on alternative grounds and that the parties had anticipated such a possibility in their briefing. In particular, the Court held that the amended complaint had not adequately pled scienter because (1) the majority of the alleged misstatements or omissions concern "run-of-the-mill regulatory back and forths"; (2) the Company has no affirmative obligation to disclose "each detail of every communication with the FDA" (quoting In re Bos. Sci. Corp. Sec. Litig., 686 F.3d 21, 31 (1st Cir. 2012)); and (3) as the Court had previously made clear, the Company's risk disclosures were adequate. The Court noted that while the Company's receipt of the FDA warning letter might be the exception to the Company's "run-of-the-mill" exchanges with the FDA, the FDA took no action against the Company at the time it issued the warning letter and merely stated that the failure to take corrective action "may" result in sanctions. The Court further held that even if the Company failed to demonstrate a "sense of urgency" after receiving the FDA warning letter, such "lack of urgency might amount to poor management, [but] such a failing does not amount to securities fraud." Having found that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a material misstatement or scienter, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint. [GN] ROMEO'S: Faces Underpayments Class Action ----------------------------------------- Lawyerly reports that supermarket chain Romeo's has become the latest retailer to face a class action alleging it failed to pay staff for all hours worked. [GN] ROOMSTOGO.COM INC: Graciano Sues Over Denied Access to Web Site --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDY GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ROOMSTOGO.COM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07811 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated blind or visually-impaired users equal and full access to its website, https://www.roomstogo.com/. The Defendant's website contains access barriers that hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to browse and enjoy the goods and services offered by the Defendant to the public. These barriers include: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text) which prevents blind or visually-impaired users to determine what is on the website, browse, or make any purchases; (2) empty links that contain no text which causes the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to blind users; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove the access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff says he and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Roomstogo.Com, Inc., operates the Rooms To Go online retail store across the United States, with its principal executive office located at 11540 US Highway 92 East, in Seffner, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com SAGINAW PRODUCTS: Denies Rights to Paid Leave, Stevens Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAGINAW PRODUCTS CORPORATION d/b/a CIGNYS, Case No. 2:20-cv-12604-MAG-PTM (E.D. Mich., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to redress violations caused by its interference with the Plaintiff's rights to take paid sick leave, and to seek all available relief under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and its divisions the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff and others of their rights under the FFCRA when it failed to provide them legally-required notice of their right to take leave and subsequently denied them of a right to paid leave, knowing that these employees had medical conditions or caregiver responsibilities due to COVID-19. On April 2, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Executive Order 2020-35, suspending face-to-face learning at K-12 schools for the remainder of the school year. The Plaintiff has two school-aged children. The Plaintiff is the sole caretaker for his children during the workweek. The Plaintiff has been diagnosed with diabetes, and the Defendant is aware of this diagnosis. The Plaintiff says the Defendant was aware that he required leave for reasons related to COVID-19. Although it was on actual notice of the Plaintiff's rights and need for leave, the Defendant taxed the Plaintiff's "PTO" pay to exhaustion before placing the Plaintiff on unpaid leave, according to the complaint. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of his right to leave under the FFCRA and never offered the Plaintiff paid leave under the FFCRA. Mr. Stevens began his employment with the Defendant as a welder in January 2005. Saginaw Products Corporation, d/b/a Cignys, is a Michigan for-profit corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Saginaw, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. Frances J. Hollander, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: (734) 929.4313 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com hollander@bwlawonline.com SARTON PUERTO RICO: Fiorentine Suit Transferred to Puerto Rico -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Fiorentine and Kim Kravitz, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sarton Puerto Rico, LLC, doing business as: Ikea Puerto Rico, a Puerto Rico limited liability company, Defendant, was transferred from the District of Columbia with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03424 to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (San Juan) on September 23, 2020, and assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01491-GAG. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory Actions filed over Personal Injury. Sarton Puerto Rico, LLC provide Market Analysis, Trading Partners, Peers, Port Statistics, B/Ls, Contacts (including Contact, Email, URL).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Pedro R Vazquez , III, Esq. PEDRO R. VAZQUEZ LAW OFFICES 73 Jaguas Street Milaville San Juan, PR 00926 Tel: (787) 925-4669 Email: prvazquez3@gmail.com SASOL LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge greenlighted a securities fraud class-action lawsuit against South African-based energy company Sasol Limited (NYSE: SSL) and five of its former executives, for misrepresentations and omissions about rising costs and construction delays at a mega-chemicals facility Sasol was building in Louisiana, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. Class Period: Mar. 10, 2015 - Jan. 13, 2020 Submit Losses: https://www.hbsslaw.com/ssl Contact Hagens Berman: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ssl SSL@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Hon. Jed S. Rakoff denied in large part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The opinion held that the lead plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pleads that the alleged misconduct violates Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was originally filed on Feb. 5, 2020. The suit calls into scrutiny the actions of Sasol, along with former CEO David Edward Constable, former joint CEOs Bongani Nqwababa and Stephen Cornell, CFO Paul Victor and former executive vice president Stephan Schoeman. These defendants must now file an answer, admitting or denying each of the complaint's allegations. The court also subsequently entered an order paving the way for the suit's lead plaintiff and class members -- investors who purchased Sasol American Depository Receipts (ADRs) between Mar. 10, 2015 and Jan. 13, 2020, inclusive -- to be ready for trial on May 3, 2021. In the 26-page motion to dismiss opinion, Judge Rakoff upheld investors' claims based on defendants' misrepresentations about the cost and construction for the Lake Charles Chemicals Project (LCCP). Specifically, the court rejected defendants' argument that their statements were protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor provision, finding that the complaint adequately alleges that defendants' cautionary language of potential cost overruns and delays was not meaningful and that defendants had actual knowledge of the falsity of their statements. "Defendants' argument utterly fails with respect to the alleged misrepresentations concerning the cost and schedule of the LCCP because . . . the complaint alleges with particularity that Sasol's public cost estimates and projected schedules hugely failed to account for already existing cost overruns and delays the day they were announced," Judge Rakoff wrote. On May 4, 2020, Hagens Berman was appointed lead counsel in the case, with Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of firm, serving as the lead trial counsel. "We are pleased with this pro investor decision, which rejects the notion that corporate fraudsters can be immunized from knowingly making false projections to investors by merely including boilerplate cautionary language warning of risks that have already transpired," Berman said. "This ruling also clears the way for us to begin obtaining discovery and prepare for trial in May 2021, during which we look forward to holding Sasol and its executives accountable for the significant losses they caused their investors." The lawsuit alleges that Sasol's ADRs were artificially inflated because of misrepresentations and omissions about the estimated end-of-job cost and development of the LCCP. When the truth emerged over a series of disclosures, shareholders learned that: (i) the LCCP's true cost was nearly $13 billion (or more than 60 percent than initially represented); (ii) beneficial operation at the LCCP would not occur until years after Sasol promised; (iii) according to Sasol's board's own account, "errors, omissions, and inaccuracies in the project cost estimate" stemmed from "inadequate control procedures," "inappropriate conduct" and "an improper tone at the top;" (iv) a multitude of Sasol senior executives were fired or otherwise forced to leave; and (v) safety violations and risks materialized with a devastating explosion at the LCCP. If you purchased Sasol ADRs and suffered significant losses, discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sasol 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 SSL@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and 88 attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] SCRIBD INC: Licea Sues Over Inconspicuous Automatic Renewal Offer ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS LICEA, an individual v. SCRIBD, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34766 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated arising from the Defendant's offer of "free" services and products that violate the California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted a "free" trial online book and audio book service/subscription and related products from the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to include in the free trial offer a "clear and conspicuous" explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends; (b) charges consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining "affirmative consent" to automatically renewing charges; and (c) fails to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded. Scribd, Inc., is a San Francisco, California-based company that operates a website, which markets online book and audio book services/subscriptions and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com SIRAB IMPORTS: Lalousis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- IOANNIS LALOUSIS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SIRAB IMPORTS, INC., and NIKOLAOS BOBORIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-04399 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working more than 10 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week during his employment with the Defendants, he was not paid by the Defendant spread-of-hours pay and his lawfully earned overtime pay at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide the following: any notices or information regarding the "wage and employment;" a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for employees to track their time worked; and paystubs or wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt driver or a delivery person from March 9, 2018, through April 10, 2020. Sirab Imports, Inc., owns and operates an import/export business for food products. Nikolaos Boboris is an owner or part owner and has the power to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and maintain records.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Rose Lynch, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Tel: 718-269-2240 E-mail: Plynch@saccofillas.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Moshen Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- MORDECHAI MOSHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, Case No. 1:20-cv-04053 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. SmileDirectClub, LLC, designs and manufactures dental equipment. The Company supplies invisible aligners and braces to get straight teeth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com STG INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case 3:20-cv-01701-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff. STG International, Inc., operates as a staffing company. The Company offers medical staffing and human resources services, systems solutions, and data resource consulting and administrative services for government and military clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Vega, Esq. Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO EMPLOYMENT LAW, INC. 2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: lauren@ferraroemploymentlaw.com nick@ferraroemploymentlaw.com STIHL SOUTHWEST: Stigger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LATRICE STIGGER and MICHELLE BROWN, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STIHL SOUTHWEST, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-06107-SOH (W.D. Ark., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, including failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and other employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid employees at its facilities located within the Hot Springs Division of the Western District of Arkansas from 2015 until March 2020. STIHL Southwest, Inc., is a branch distributor of yard and construction equipment and tools manufacturer STIHL, Inc., with a principal place of business in Malvern, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: April Rheaume, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com TARGET CORP: Seiller Sues Over False Up&Up Acetaminophen Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SEILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-07818-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and fraud, and for deceptive acts or practices and false advertising under New York General Business Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive and misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of Target's Up&Up acetaminophen brand for infants in the United States. The Defendant purposely packages Infants' Dye-Free Acetaminophen Fever Reducer/Pain Reliever Liquid with distinctive pink lettering of the word "Infants'" on the product's front-label, while packaging Children's Dye-Free Acetaminophen Fever Reducer/Pain Reliever Liquid with distinctive pink lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label. According to the complaint, the Defendant distributes, markets, and sells the products in a manner, which deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that infants cannot safely take children's products. Furthermore, despite the fact that the products contain the same exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, the Defendant markets and sells infants' products to consumers, such as the Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than children's products. The Plaintiff contends that he and Class members were injured as a result of the Defendant's deceptive acts because (a) they would not have purchased the Products if they had known that the because the infants' products and children's products are identical, and thus are interchangeable, and (b) they overpaid for the product on account of the misrepresentation and omission that the children's products are in fact suitable and safe for infants. Target Corporation is an American retail company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and – Blair E. Reed, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: breed@bursor.com TREVCO INC: Nisbett Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Trevco, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trevco, Inc. doing business as: MaskClub, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07814 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020). Trevco Inc. retails sportswear. The Company offers licensed and non-licensed tees for men, women, kids, and babies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com TU CASA RESTAURANT: Chumil Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELLINO CHUMIL; and JOSE CHUMIL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TU CASA RESTAURANT (d/b/a TU CASA); WILLY ALBA SR.; WILLY ALBA JR.; MARITZA DOE; CARLOS DOE; and RODOLFO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-06990 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 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 delivery workers. Tu Casa Restaurant operates a Latin restaurant located in Astoria, Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Anthony Ayala filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Commission Wage Orders, including failure to provide meal and rest periods and failure to compensate for all hours of work performed. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55981, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Anthony Ayala's opening brief is due on November 25, 2020; -- Appellees U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s answering brief is due on December 28, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY AYALA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Borgen, Esq. James Kan, Esq. Raymond A. Wendell, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-980 E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com jkan@gbdhlegal.com rwendell@gbdhlegal.com - and - James M. Sitkin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 318-1048 E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com - and - Richard S. Swartz, Esq. Justin Lee Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 North Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com Defendants-Appellees U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC. and U.S. XPRESS, INC. are represented by: James Anthony Eckhart, Esq. James Harold Hanson, Esq. Elizabeth Ashley Paynter, Esq. R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com jhanson@scopelitis.com apaynter@scopelitis.com jtaylor@scopelitis.com - and - Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com - and - Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, PC 30 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7181 E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DEA Cash Grabs Amended ------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Sullum, writing for Reason, reports that after flying from Tampa to North Carolina for a casino reopening last May, Stacy Jones and her husband had dinner with friends, who were interested in buying a car the couple owned. They paid for it in cash. When the couple had to cut their trip short because of a death in the family, Jones put that money, along with cash she had for gambling, in a carry-on bag and headed for the airport in Wilmington, never considering the possibility that she was about to be robbed of $43,000 by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). A local sheriff's deputy, alerted to the presence of seizable cash by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners, grilled Jones and her husband about the money and deemed their explanation fishy, even after he called their friend, who confirmed the car purchase but was unable to say exactly how many miles were on the odometer. The deputy called in two DEA agents, who interrogated the couple some more and then announced that they were seizing the money based on their suspicion that it was related to drug trafficking. Jones is the latest named plaintiff in a federal class action lawsuit that the Institute for Justice filed in January, arguing that the DEA's practice of seizing money from travelers without any evidence of criminal activity violates the Fourth Amendment. The lawsuit also argues that the TSA's participation in this racket is unconstitutional and exceeds the agency's statutory authority. "I've traveled with cash in the past," Jones told WFLA, the NBC station in Tampa. "We are recreational gamblers, so it's just something that we've done and never thought twice about." There is nothing illegal about traveling with large amounts of cash. But given the legalized larceny authorized by civil asset forfeiture laws, Jones was always taking a risk by thinking she could safely travel with her own money, unmolested by avaricious drug warriors. "Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and permanently keep your property, even if you've never been charged with a crime," Institute for Justice senior attorney Dan Alban explained to WFLA. "DEA has a policy of seizing large amounts of cash at airports, regardless if it has any proof the money is connected to drug trafficking. And unfortunately, that sweeps up a whole bunch of innocent people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for traveling with cash." According to the Institute for Justice lawsuit, the DEA seized more than $2 billion in cash from 2009 through 2013. During that period, it was responsible for more than 4,000 cash seizures at airports and other transportation facilities, which netted a total of $163 million. The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Terrence Rolin, a 79-year-old retired railroad engineer, who lost his life saving -- $82,373 -- to a DEA seizure after his daughter, Rebecca Brown, whom he had charged with depositing the money in a joint bank account, took it with her while flying from Pittsburgh, where she was visiting him, to her home in Massachusetts. Two months later, after the case attracted national publicity, the DEA agreed to return the money. Rolin and Brown are still participating in the lawsuit. In the amended complaint, they say their fear of DEA seizures has prevented them from handling money the way they would otherwise prefer. "Terry's and Rebecca's case made headlines across the country and even overseas, but that still didn't stop the TSA and DEA from doing the same thing to Stacy," notes Institute for Justice attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "The government shouldn't be able to take someone's savings unless they are convicted of a crime. But because federal law enforcement gets to spend the money it keeps through civil forfeiture, agencies like the DEA are incentivized to take cash without justification." Jones thinks Americans traveling in the United States should not have to live in fear of money-grabbing law enforcement officials, as if they were visiting a Third World country where corruption is endemic and cops routinely act like robbers. "I worked hard for this money and was intending to use it for a down payment on a house," she says. "It's wrong that the government treats people like criminals even though they are doing something perfectly legal. It needs to stop." [GN] UNITED STATES: Medrano Files Suit in Court of Federal Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Medrano, et al. has filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. government in the United States Court of Federal Claims on Sept. 22, 2020. The case is styled as Laura Medrano, Michael McQueary, Demarcus Taylor, Deon Scott, Marlen Rodriguez, Christopher Palomares, Jerry Motley, Jr., Marquis Mosley, Lucas Meyer and Jason McDonald, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01245-MHS. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civilian Pay - FLSA filed pursuant to the Tucker Act. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles' Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. Hodges & Foty, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Meinders TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., Ltd. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00548-SMY, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., LTD. filed a two-count class action complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, against Emery Wilson Corporation d/b/a Sterling Management Systems and John Does 1-12 alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and common law conversion. The appellate case is captioned as Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2832, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT L. MEINDERS, Doctor, D.C., LTD., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons, is represented by: Phillip Andrew Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., JOHN DOES 1-12, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF ARIZONA, INC., UHC OF CALIFORNIA, doing business as UnitedHealthCare of California, and UNITED HEALTHCARE OF ILLINOIS, INC. are represented by: Adam K. Levin, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street N.W. Columbia Square Washington, DC 20004-1109 Telephone: (202) 637-6846 E-mail: adam.levin@hoganlovells.com UTAH: Ringgold Files Suit v. System of Higher Educ. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah System of Higher Education. The case is styled as Ariiyana Ringgold, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Utah System of Higher Education, Harris H. Simmons, Jesselie B. Anderson, Mike Angus, Jera L. Bailey, Nina Barnes, Stacey K. Bettridge, Lisa-Michele Church, Wilford Clyde, Candyce Damron, Sanchaita Datta, Alan E. Hall, Patricia Jones, Crystal Maggelet, Arther E. Newell, Aaron V. Osmond, Glen Rivera and Scott L. Theurer, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00671-RJS (D. Utah, Sept. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Education filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Kaplan, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W BROADWAY STE 700 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 Tel: (801) 534-1700 Email: rkaplan@aklawfirm.com - and - Andrew R. Hale, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W BROADWAY STE 700 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 Tel: (801) 534-1700 Email: ahale@aklawfirm.com UTICA FIRST: Kite & Key Seeks Payment for Losses Due to COVID-19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- KITE AND KEY GASTRO PUB, INC. d/b/a KITE & KEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UTICA FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04264-MMB (E.D. Pa., Aug. 31, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay insurance for losses due to COVID-19. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class purchased and paid for an "all-risk" Commercial Property Coverage insurance policy from the Defendant, which provides broad property insurance coverage for all non-excluded, lost business income, including the losses asserted here. The Plaintiff's insurance policy with the Defendant expressly includes "Business Income" coverage which promises to pay for loss due to the necessary suspension of operations following loss to property and "Civil Authority" coverage which promises to pay for losses caused by a civil or governmental authority that prohibits access to the covered property. Upon claim, the Defendant has refused to honor that policy and has failed to provide the coverage purchased by the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff's timely submission of notice of claim, according to the complaint. The Defendant has similarly refused to, or will refuse to, honor its obligations under the "all-risk" policy(ies) purchased by the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class of insureds. Utica First Insurance Company offers property and casualty insurance services. The Company provides small contractors, restaurants, retail stores, offices, and homeowners insurance throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite "A" Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225 Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com VARA CORP: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Vara Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vara Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07863 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Vara Safety is a technology company focused on advanced biometric access.[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 VAXART INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Shareholder Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, is investigating potential claims on behalf of shareholders of Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VXRT) arising from allegations that Vaxart's Board of Directors may have breached their fiduciary duties to Vaxart and its shareholders. If you own Vaxart securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Vaxart VXRT Shareholder Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Vaxart is a clinical-stage biotechnology company primarily focused on the development of oral recombinant vaccines based on its oral vaccine platform. On July 25, 2020, the New York Times published an article titled: "Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine." That article described how Vaxart's "[c]ompany insiders, who weeks earlier had received stock options worth a few million dollars, saw the value of those awards increase sixfold" when the Company announced that its COVID-19 vaccine had been selected by the U.S. government to be part of Operation Warp Speed, the flagship federal initiative to quickly develop drugs to combat COVID-19. If you own Vaxart securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/vaxartinc-vxrt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-284/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] VI DEVELOPMENT: Cuaya Action Granted Collective Status ------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR COYOTL CUAYA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. VI DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a BREAD & BUTTER, et al. Case No. 1:19-cv-04290-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James L. Cott entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Cuaya's motion for conditional collective action certification: The Court grants conditional collective action certification but only as to kitchen employees, including cooks, food preparers, porters, and dishwashers who worked at defendants' Bread & Butter restaurants, finding that Cuaya has made the factual showing required to infer that these employees were subject to a common policy or plan that violated the law.; 2. directing that notice and consent forms be sent to: "all cooks, food preparers, porters, and dishwashers who worked at the defendants' Bread & Butter restaurants within three years of the date of the filing of the complaint"; 3. directing that the notice should instruct potential plaintiffs to mail consent forms to Cuaya's counsel and include contact information for both the plaintiff's and defendants' counsel, as described in this Memorandum Order. 4. requiring the Defendants to post the notice and consent forms in a common, non-public employee space at their Bread & Butter restaurants, and granting potential plaintiffs 60 days to opt in to the collective action; 5. directing the defendants to disclose to Cuaya's counsel the names, titles, compensation rates, last-known mailing addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment of all potential plaintiffs within the conditionally certified collective action, to facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs of this action and of their opportunity to opt-in as represented plaintiff, and directing the Defendants to provide this information within 30 days of the date of this Order; 6. declining to require production at this time of the Social Security numbers of potential collective action members; 7. denying Cuaya's request to equitably toll the statute of limitations, without prejudice to renewal by opt-in plaintiffs on an individualized basis; 8. directing Cuaya to revise the notice and consent form, consistent with this Memorandum Order, to confer with defendants in order to agree on a final version of each form, and to submit final versions (as well any translations) for the Court's approval no later than September 24, 2020; and 9. directing the Clerk of the Court to close docket entry number 64 and mark it as granted in part and denied in part. The Court said it agrees with the defendants' view that the proposed collective is overboard. The Court held, "It is true that courts in this Circuit 'routinely find employees similarly situated despite not occupying the same positions or performing the same job functions and in the same locations, provided that they are subject to a common unlawful policy or practice.' Here, however, each of the 10 employees Cuaya names as people with whom he has had specific conversations about wage-and-hour policies is a kitchen employee, except for one employee characterized as a porter/delivery worker. Cuaya 'offers no specific conversations, names, or other details to show that employees other than kitchen staff were part of a common policy that violated the FLSA.' Rather, the only statements Cuaya makes with respect to non-kitchen staff are conclusory allegations that 'other employees were also required to work for hours for which they were not paid' and that 'no employees were ever paid a spread of hours premium.'" The Court found no basis upon which it can "fairly infer" that employees outside of the kitchen, who did not serve in roles similar to Cuaya's, worked similar shifts or hours as he did. Therefore, the Court cannot "draw the inference" that any employees in those roles "suffer[ed] the same violations of the FLSA." At this stage, Cuaya has not met his burden of "show[ing] that there is at least some common question of law or fact that justifies including" non-kitchen employees, such as cashiers, counter persons, or cleaning persons. His conclusory allegations fail to make even a modest showing that any employees -- other than kitchen employees -- were subject to similar conditions. Accordingly, the Court granted the collective action only insofar as kitchen employees, including cooks, food preparers, porters, and dishwashers] are concerned. The Plaintiff Victor Coyotl Cuaya, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brings this action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against the defendants Terence Park, Byung Il Park, and seven corporate defendants that allegedly operate a chain of deli restaurants in Manhattan under the shared trade name "Bread & Butter". Cuaya alleges that the defendants willfully engaged in various unlawful employment practices, including by failing to pay required minimum and overtime wages and spread of hours compensation. A copy of the Court's Order on Cuaya's motion for conditional collective action certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZIupJ3 at no extra charge.[CC] VICOSOFT INC: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Vicosoft Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vicosoft Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07866 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). VicoSoft is a mobile app developer company. They have developed various applications like VFX Studio Pro and Baby Sleep:Lullabies.[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 VIKI INC: Martinez Sues Over Violation of Automatic Renewal Law --------------------------------------------------------------- ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., an individual v. VIKI, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34628 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated arising from the Defendants' offer of "free" services and products that violate the California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted a "free" trial subscription of Asian-themed streaming and related products from the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in a "clear and conspicuous" manner and in "visual proximity" to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) fails to include in the free trial offer a "clear and conspicuous" explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends; (c) charges consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining "affirmative consent" to automatically renewing charges; and (d) fails to provide an acknowledgment that includes the full cancellation policy in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded. Viki, Inc., is a San Mateo, California-based company that operates a website, which markets Asian-themed streaming and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com VIKING RIVER CRUISES: Winegard Alleges ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Viking River Cruises, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. doing business as: www.viking.tv doing business as: www.vikingcruises.com doing business as: www.vikingrivercruises.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04504 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). Viking is a cruise line providing river, ocean, and expedition cruises. Its operating headquarters are in Basel, Switzerland, and its marketing headquarters are in Los Angeles, California. The company has three divisions, Viking River Cruises, Viking Ocean Cruises, and Viking Expeditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com VIRGIN SCENT: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Virgin Scent Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Virgin Scent Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07856 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020). VIRGIN SCENT INC is in the Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations industry.[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 WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera ---------------------------------------------------- ABC7 reports that the District of Columbia is notorious for its use of traffic enforcement cameras and is often accused of setting speed-traps that generate millions in revenue but do little for traffic safety. Lisa Fletcher, writing for WJLA, reports that last fall, the 7 On Your Side investigative team exposed one camera that's raked-in more than $34 million under very questionable circumstances. That camera is now the subject of a class action lawsuit. And if plaintiffs prevail, it could bring relief to thousands. Reggie Matthews and his wife Teresa were both ticketed by the same speed camera on the same day, an hour apart. Each fined $200 for going 55 and 52 in a 50 mph zone. Or, at least it was a 50 mph zone until the District lowered the limit to 40, declared it a work zone and doubled the fine even though there was no evidence of work and only one sign, so small it could be obstructed by a passing vehicle. "After I got the ticket I happened to be watching TV and I came across the ABC7 story about that particular speed camera and I decided I wanted to see what we could do to make this right for all the people who've been victimized by this," said Matthews. Those guidelines say there should be multiple signs alerting drivers to a work zone and when the work is over, signs should come down and regular speed limits resumed. "The work in the construction zone ended in May of 2019 and our clients were ticketed in November," said Mason. "So we're talking about May 2019 to late 2019, early 2020 when that area was designated a work zone where no work was taking place and the tickets were doing nothing but generating revenue for the city." Not only that, but we discovered the act of lowering of the speed limit may have been done illegally, according to the District's own laws. According to Title 18 2200.2, a decision to raise or lower the speed limit is made on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation. Through the Freedom of Information Act, we requested a copy of that investigation and were told by the FOIA Administrator that it does not exist. We followed up with a phone call to make certain we weren't missing anything. We were assured our FOIA request was properly filed and written and while it was clearly understood what we were seeking, there was no such report. We made inquiries of several attorneys to get their reading of Title 18 2200.2. All agreed that the traffic and engineering investigation the law requires would not have been optional and its absence raises legal questions. We asked the Deputy Mayor of Operations and Infrastructure, Lucinda Babers, to sit down and talk with us about Title 18 as well as allegations made in the lawsuit. Her office declined, stating that "District government does not comment on active litigation matters." It didn't take long for the Matthews to decide to anchor a class-action lawsuit against the District. "Once the Deputy Mayor, in my view had done that God-awful interview with you, Lisa, she was being extremely arrogant to me, had no compassion for working folks out here going to work, talking their kids to school, or what have you," said Matthews. "The sheer arrogance. This is about me speaking truth to power." And as for those "working folks" Matthews says deserve better, he says he and Teresa are willing to take the lead, and hope others join. [GN] WEST MARINE: Faces Graciano Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07870 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 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, https://www.westmarine.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, says the complaint. The Defendant operates the West Marine online retail store as well as the West Marine website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com WILCO LIFE: Anderson Appeals Order in Insurance Suit to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vanessa Anderson filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled Vanessa Anderson v. Wilco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-00008-JRH-BKE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The appellate case is captioned as Vanessa Anderson v. Wilco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 20-13482, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 23, 2020, Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, reopened the case styled as VANESSA ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CV 119-008 (S.D. Ga.). Under the case, Plaintiff Anderson, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, alleged that the Defendant improperly raised her insurance premiums to a level that caused her policy to lapse. She originally filed the lawsuit in Columbia County, Georgia, but the Defendant removed the case to the Georgia District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff then moved to remand the case, arguing that the Defendant could not meet CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. The District Court granted the motion to remand which the Defendant appealed, arguing that the face value of the putative class' insurance policies totalled more than $5 million, satisfying the amount in controversy requirement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated the District Court's remand Order, reasoning that because the Plaintiff and the class seek to reinstate their now-lapsed insurance policies, the face value of the policies should be included in the amount in controversy. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Accordingly, Judge Hall made the Mandate of the Eleventh Circuit the Order of the District Court. The Judge directed the Clerk of the Court to vacate the stay of July 17, 2019 and reopen the case. The parties are directed to file a Rule 26(f) report in accordance with the District Court's Jan. 14, 2019 Order without delay. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before October 21, 2020; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before October 9, 2020 as to Appellee Wilco Life Insurance Company.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VANESSA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Lee W. Brigham, Esq. BELL & BRIGHAM 457 Greene St. PO Box 1547 Augusta, GA 30903-1547 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 E-mail: lee@bellbrigham.com - and - Robert Brent Irby, Esq. Charles A. McCallum, III, Esq. MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY, LLP 905 Montgomery Hwy., Ste. 201 Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 545-8334 E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com cmccallum@mhcilaw.com Defendant-Appellee WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Taylor F. Brinkman, Esq. Anna K. Finger, Esq. Carl C. Scherz, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-2748 Telephone: (214) 740-8000 E-mail: tbrinkman@lockelord.com anna.k.finger@lockelord.com cscherz@lockelord.com - and - Elizabeth Joy Campbell, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Ste. 1200 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 870-4679 E-mail: ecampbell@lockelord.com WISE CHOICE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zaira Ramirez v. Wise Choice Trans Corp., a California corporation, DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. ZOCV370571 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated individuals due to the Defendants' unlawful labor practices resulting to violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay minimum wage for each hour she worked in excess of eight in a workday and 40 in a workweek, fail to pay overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, fail to pay all wages that were due to them within the time she was discharged from employment, and fail to provide timely, accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates during the pay period, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful and unfair business practices, the Plaintiff further seeks restitution, and other appropriate relief available under Business Professions Code Section 17203, on her own behalf, and on behalf of others similarly situated. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an office administrator position from July 2017 through November 2019. Wise Choice Transportation Corp, Inc., is a California corporation that provides "final mile delivery" services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Lewis, Esq. DREW LEWIS, PC 2998 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 375 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (833) 600-7400 E-mail: drew@drewlewis.law WOOD GROUP: Iannotti Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS IANNOTTI, individually and for others similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, Case No. 3:20-cv-00958 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Land Agent from January 2015 until March 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him of overtime compensation for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the proper overtime rate pursuant to the FLSA. Despite frequently working more than 60 hours in a workweek, the Defendant only paid him his flat rate for the number of days he worked. Wood Group Mustang is a for-profit company that delivers project management, construction management, engineering and procurement services to the offshore, onshore, oil sands, pipeline, refining, chemicals, industrial and automation sectors, operating in countries throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 [*] Australians Must Not Bow to US Lobbyists Against Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oksana Patron, writing for Money Management, reports that an advice firm which allegedly gave conflicted advice has been ordered by a court to pay back the lost SMSF monies. Class Action Australia has warned that if Australian leading class action law firms bow to the US Chamber of Commerce's lobbying against class actions, this may end up depriving regular Australians of access to justice. The representatives of law firms, who appeared before a parliamentary inquiry, included Maurice Blackburn, Slater and Gordon, and Shine, and according to Class Actions Australia, all these firms were members of the Keep Corporations Honest campaign. Class Actions Australia spokesperson, Ben Hardwick, described how the interference of the US lobby was concerning after MP Jason Falinski challenged the suggestion that Treasurer Josh Frydenberg had met with the US Chamber of Commerce just days before announcing draconian new regulation of class action funding. "We know the US Chamber of Commerce is lobbying furiously to reduce the impact of Australian class actions because they don't like their multinational members, like Johnson and Johnson, being sued by regular Australians. It is important to recognise this and fight it. The pernicious influence of big money American-style business lobbying should have no place in Australian politics," Hardwick said. Shine Lawyers head of litigation and loss recovery, Jan Saddler, told the inquiry that litigation funding was a crucial part of the class action system and stressed that class actions litigation was expensive to conduct both for the plaintiffs and the defendants for many reasons. "The disputes are almost always contested and involve all parties expending many millions of dollars in legal costs prosecuting and defending the issues in dispute," Saddler said. "There is the risk that if unsuccessful, the other parties costs, are payable. Quite simply, without the support of litigation funders, Shine would not be able to act for as many well deserving Australians as it does." [GN] [*] Litigation Funding Reforms in Aus. Must Strike Right Balance ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Global Legal Post reports that Andrew Saker, of Omni Bridgeway, speaks out for balance and understanding as Australia debates litigation funding. The role of litigation funders in the Australian class action system is currently under assault from a number of vocal pro-business advocates. Their motive is clear: remove the funders and you remove class actions against large companies. Developments in the class action space this year have provided a platform for these wilfully ill-informed campaigns and, in the process, have obscured the benefits litigation funders can bring to businesses, particularly in this challenging economic environment. As previously reported by the Global Legal Post, in March this year the Australian government announced a parliamentary inquiry into litigation funding and the class action system. Two months later, the Government expanded the scope of the inquiry and signalled important changes to the sector by introducing a requirement for litigation funders to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) and comply with the managed investment scheme (MIS) regime. Omni Bridgeway welcomes improvements to the 30-year-old Australian class action system and appropriate regulation of the litigation funding industry. As the pioneer of litigation funding in Australia, we support the introduction of a licensing regime for funders that sets minimum onshore capital adequacy requirements, disclosure obligations and reporting standards. Having previously held an AFSL, we have reapplied for a licence in the context of these reforms. We are also consulting with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission about appropriate modifications to the MIS regime to ensure it is fit for the purpose of applying to funded class actions. However, any additional reform measures adopted must strike the right balance and must not have the consequence -- unintended or otherwise -- of pushing funders out of the market. This would not only compromise the viability of the class actions regime, but it might also cut off a potential source of liquidity for Australian businesses struggling to survive and manage risks in a Covid-19 world. Class actions are invariably complex, notoriously expensive and take years to resolve. They are usually brought against well-funded defendants -- large corporates who are often insured -- or governments. When a funder is involved in a class action, the funder pays the representative claimant's costs on a non-recourse basis—that is, if the case is lost, the funder is owed nothing; the funder is only reimbursed its costs and receives a fee if the case is successful. As Australia is a loser-pays jurisdiction, the funder usually also indemnifies the claimant for any adverse costs on an uncapped basis. Litigation funding therefore provides protection to defendants—usually large companies that know their costs will be paid in the event the action is unsuccessful. In addition to the financial protection they provide to corporate defendants in class actions (if the case is lost), litigation funding can provide other benefits for companies. In the difficult economic environment caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, almost all businesses, large or small, need to conserve cash and consider ways to access liquidity. And litigation funding is one potential source of capital. While businesses are likely to face a range of new commercial disputes, there will be little room in budgets to pursue legal claims and seek recoveries that may sustain them through the economic downturn. Litigation outcomes lie in the future and are inherently uncertain. Funders such as Omni Bridgeway are run by highly experienced former dispute lawyers who undertake extensive due diligence to ensure that only meritorious cases are pursued. They also assess the estimated legal costs and strategies to ensure, as far as possible, that they are proportionate to the sums at stake. Litigation funding arrangements are flexible, depending on the circumstances, and use an 'asset' that may otherwise be overlooked. How does it work? By using external funding to finance the costs of a dispute (including lawyer and expert fees, and court costs), legal claims are leveraged as assets. This means the funder pays some or all of these costs in return for a share of the outcome. In this way, businesses can improve liquidity, transfer all or a portion of the legal expenses to the funder, and maintain cash on the balance sheet. Businesses are also able to leverage the value in their contingent litigation assets by seeking funding in the form of a capital advance, with no corresponding balance sheet liability. And some legal claims can also be monetised by selling them, in whole or in part, to a funder. Any reforms made to the class action system in Australia as a result of the Federal parliamentary inquiry must be necessary and of clear benefit to all stakeholders. Reforms that stifle the litigation funding industry will not be in anyone's best interests. Andrew Saker is chief executive officer and managing director of Omni Bridgeway. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Navistar International Corporation still defends itself against asbestos claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020. The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could become significant in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/gccDTw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment for Sikorsky ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. has achieved victory in asbestos case with issue of first impression before Connecticut Supreme Court. The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling in a case of first impression dealing with asbestos in the workplace. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed a ruling from a lower court, which granted summary judgment for Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., crushing a potential class action asbestos claim against the Stratford-based company. The class-action lawsuit seeked medical monitoring for workers allegedly exposed to asbestos when its Connecticut facility was renovated. ********* 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 ***