/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 202 Headlines 183 FOOD MARKET: Faces Hurtado Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages 5TH AVENUE TREE: Matiano FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida 99 CENTS: Class Certification Denial in Barriga Suit Flipped ABM INDUSTRY: Canas Seeks Proper Wages for Parking Attendants AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rauls Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA ALTERATION GROUP: Deal in Arnutovskaya Labor Suit Gets Final OK ALTERYX INC: Faces Chau Class Suit Over 35% Drop in Share Price AMERICAN MEDICAL: Compelled to Produce Excel Report in Mendell Suit ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Files Second Amended Class Complaint APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Turizo Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 19 Deadline BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Partly Compelled to Discovery Responses in Nieves BED BATH: Consolidated or Amended Complaint Due October 20 BENTLEY BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Claims BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Sheth Says BLOOMBERG LP: Adams Sues Over Unlawful OT Pay and Wage Statements BONDZ INC: Mendez Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Approved in Matute BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Okayed in Henriquez BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 26 Deadline CABLEVISION SYSTEM: Gayle Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline CANADA: Arguments to Certify MMIWG Class Suit to Start September CASA TUA: Gomez Seeks Blind's Equal and Full Access to Mobile App CENTRAL CLINICAL: Sanders Sues Over Violation of FLSA and BIPA CHASE BANK: $245,000 Deal in Chen ECOA Suit Gets Final Approval CLAIRE'S STORES: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Parker Alleges CLARITY DIAGNOSTICS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Alleged Time-Shaving CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Suits in New York Consolidated CONSUMER CELLULAR: Kane Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA CORE CIVIC: Court Dismisses Bacon Prisoners Suit Without Prejudice COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Mai Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Shop Cards COTY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Putative Class Suit Ongoing in E.D.N.Y. DANNY & JIMMY'S: Fails to Pay FLSA Mandatory Wages, Herrera Says DDT CONCRETE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Sensing Suit Claims DIAMOND PET FOODS: Faces Spivey Fraud Suit in C.D. California DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon FDUTPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ECKERT SEAMANS: Montgomery Sues Over Investment Scheme by LaForte EMPIRE HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Del Valle FLSA Suit Says ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PEABF Wants Subpoena in Pelletier Suit Quashed EXTREME CONSCIOUSNESS: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Claims FASTLY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Leaky Sunroof Class Action FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL: Faces Von Heppinstall Suit in Pennsylvania FLOR DE MAYO: Faces Barragan Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York GILEAD SCIENCES: FWK Suit Alleges Monopoly in cART Drug Market GOOGLE LLC: Peekya Sues Over Android App Monopoly GREEN DAY: Faces McLanahan TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls & Texts GRUMA CORP: Faces Govea Suit Over Misleading Labels of Products GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Defends Stockholder Class Suit in California HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Coffee Sues Over Excessive Premium HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL: Russell HIPAA Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y. HOME DEPOT: Mendiola Suit Moved From M.D. Florida to N.D. Georgia INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline INTEL CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action INTEL CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline JCF RESIDENCES: Atwood Sues Over Denied FMLA Leave & Retaliation JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Can't Compel Medical Records of Susan Chamlin KNOX COUNTY, TN: Obtains Judgment on Pleadings in Hicks Suit LDA DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Mendez Says LEND LEASE: Mismanages Housing at MCB Camp Lejeune, Johnson Says LME INC: Arnold WARN Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to Minnesota LOANCARE LLC: Faces Landers RESPA Suit Over Improper Escrow Fees MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: A. Pascale Named Sub. Plaintiff in Briggs MARRIOTT INT'L: Servers File Class Action Over Unpaid Gratuities MAXIM INTEGRATED: Continues to Defend ADI Merger Related Suits MB DOWNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says MDL 2972: Allen Seeks Transfer of 8 Blackbaud Breach Suits to S.C. MILLENIAL SOLUTIONS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls MOUNTAIRE CORP: Ordered to Pay Cuppels' Counsel $28,000 Sanction NANO-X IMAGING: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action NEW ORLEANS, LA: Court Dismisses Mestayer Suit Over ATES Ordinance NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Nov. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline NIKOLA CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Nov. 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Nov. 16 Deadline NIKOLA CORPORATION: Gross Law Announces Class Action NIKOLA CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action NISSAN NORTH: Nguyen Appeals Ruling in CLRA Suit to Ninth Circuit ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline OHIO STATE: Court Lifts Seal in Amended Garrett & Snyder-Hill Suits OKONITE COMPANY: Parrish Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California OTELCO INC: Defends Plumley Putative Class Action PHILADELPHIA, PA: Morlok Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Yaroni Sues Over 92% Drop in IPO Share Price PNC FINANCIAL: Settlement in Rossini Suit Gets Final Approval ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jeganathan Retaliation Suit in N.J. ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Faces Ingram Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages ROSANN LANDSCAPE: Contreras Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. ROSETTA STONE: Curtis Suit Challenges $792-Mil. Sale to Cambium SMITHTOWN NISSAN: McFadden Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation SPERIAN ENERGY: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Corsale Suit SQUEAKY KLEAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vargas Suit Alleges STARBUCKS CORP: Phayakapong Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Gift Cards STARR RESTAURANT: Weiss Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Class Suit Pending UNITED STATES: Amended K.O. Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Cacciapalle Class Complaint UNITED STATES: Prestige Sues Over Unlawful Denial of EIDL Loans UNITED STATES: TRO/Class Certification Motions in Gomez Suit Denied UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Daleiden Appeals Decision in Doe Suit UNUM LIFE: Vasquez ERISA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois VARIAN MEDICAL: Agreement Reached in Siemens Merger Related Suits VILLA CHARITIES: Faces $35MM COVID-19 Negligence Class Action WELLSTAR HEALTH: Cole Sues Over Facility Fees Charged to Patients WEST PENN: Faces Class Action Over Secret Recordings WEST ROAD PIZZA: Calhoun Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses WINS FINANCE: Continues to Defend Kamau Shareholder Class Suit WINS FINANCE: March 2021 Hearing on Desta Settlement Approval WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Consolidated Suit v. Comerica Bank Ongoing WOODVALLEY LANDSCAPE: Martinez Seeks Landscapers' Unpaid OT Wages WPX ENERGY: Order of Dismissal Issued in Hudson Suit XCEL CARE: Mogocha Seeks Proper Minimum and OT Pay for Caregivers YAYYO INC: Faces Hamlin Suit Over 90% Drop in IPO Share Price ********* 183 FOOD MARKET: Faces Hurtado Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE HURTADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 183 FOOD MARKET CORP. d/b/a FOOD UNIVERSE and ROBERTO ESPINAL, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-07988 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, who has worked with the Defendants as a stocker from February 2, 2020, through July 15, 2020, alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to compensate him at the statutorily-required overtime rate of pay for the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide him with an accurate wage statement on each payday and a wage notice upon his date of hire that accurately stated his regular and overtime rates of pay. 183 Food Market Corp., d/b/a Food Universe, operates supermarkets. Roberto Espinal is owner and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 939-7229 E-mail: info@stevensonmarino.com 5TH AVENUE TREE: Matiano FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as AVIEL JUAREZ MATIANO, and other similarly situated individuals v. 5th AVENUE TREE EXPERTS, INC. and SAMI SLIM, individually, Case No. 20-016907-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-61973 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of overtime provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 5th Avenue Tree Experts, Inc., is a company that offers tree services based in Coral Springs, Florida.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adi Amit, Esq. ADI AMIT, P.A. 101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-5922 Facsimile: (954) 302-4963 E-mail: adi@defenderofbusiness.com 99 CENTS: Class Certification Denial in Barriga Suit Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SOFIA WILTON BARRIGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. E069288 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division Two, reversed the trial court's orders denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike 99 Cents' declarations and class certification motion, and remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider them. Plaintiff Barriga filed the lawsuit against 99 Cents, on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees of 99 Cents hired before Oct. 1, 1999, and who worked the graveyard shift after Jan. 1, 2012, until the conclusion of her lawsuit, pleading various Labor Code violations and violation of the unfair competition law. The Plaintiff alleged 99 Cents has a zero-tolerance policy that requires its stores to lock their doors at closing time, therefore, forcing nonexempt, nonmanagerial employees, who work the graveyard shift and clock out for their meal break or at the end of their shift, to wait for as long as 15 minutes for a manager with a key to let them out of the store. According to her, 99 Cents does not pay its employees for the time they have to wait be let out of the store, and its zero-tolerance policy denies employees their full half-hour meal break. In addition, Plaintiff alleges 99 Cents does not promptly pay employees the wages they are owed upon termination or resignation and does not provide employees with accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff moved the trial court to certify two classes: (1) "Off the Clock Class," consisting of employees who were locked in the store and not paid for the time they waited, and (2) "Meal Period Class," comprised of employees who were denied full meal breaks because they were locked in. Thereafter, 99 Cents opposed the Plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed classes, contending there is no community of interests among putative class members, and the lack of common issues among putative class members will render a class action unmanageable. In support of its opposition, 99 Cents submitted 174 declarations from current and former nonexempt employees to establish, inter alia, that its closed-door policy was often observed in the breach, meaning graveyard shift employees could leave the store immediately without waiting to be let out, and those employees who did have to wait were let out promptly and paid for the time they waited. Only 53 of the declarants were members of the proposed classes. All 174 declarations included an identical or nearly identical paragraph stating the declarants knew their declarations could be used by 99 Cents to defend itself against a class action lawsuit about its wage policies and practices, and an identical or nearly identical paragraph purporting to state the declarants had not been coerced into signing their declaration and understood what they were signing. The Plaintiff deposed 12 of the employee declarants who were members of the proposed classes. Most of the deponents clearly testified they understood what they were signing, and they did so freely and without coercion or promise of promotion or a pay raise. However, some of the deponents testified they had no idea what the lawsuit was about or even why they had been called upon to testify. And, most of the deponents testified they had been summoned, during working hours, to an office, by a representative from human resources, and presented with a declaration for their signature. The Plaintiff moved to strike all 174 declarations on the grounds the process by which they had been obtained was improper, and because they were substantively inconsistent with the subsequent deposition testimony of 12 of the declarants. Concluding it lacked the statutory authority to strike the declarations, the trial court denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike. In the alternative, the court concluded there was no coercion to justify striking the declarations from the putative class members, and it lacked the authority to review for coercion let alone strike any of the declarations from nonputative class members. And, based on all 174 declarations, the court concluded the Plaintiff had not demonstrated a community of interests or a commonality of issues among putative class members. Therefore, the trial court denied the Plaintiff's class certification motion. The Plaintiff appeals those orders. On appeal, the parties generally agree the trial court had the duty and authority to exercise control over communications between the parties and potential class members to prevent unfairness. In addition, they agree in principle the trial court had the power to strike or discount the weight to be given to the declarations submitted in opposition to the Plaintiff's certification motion if the evidence demonstrated the declarations were obtained through coercion or deception. The parties part company, however, on the question of the scrutiny to be given those declarations. Adopting the standards articulated in Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard (1981) 452 U.S. 89 (Gulf Oil), California courts have recognized the trial court has both the duty and the authority to exercise control over precertification communications between the parties and putative class members to ensure fairness in class actions. Moreover, the lower federal courts have consistently held that an ongoing business relationship between the class opponent and putative class members -- especially a current employer-employee relationship -- is rife for abuse and coercion. Therefore, those courts have cautioned that statements obtained by the class opponent from its employees, to oppose a class certification motion, must be carefully scrutinized for actual or threatened abuse. And, if the trial court concludes the statements were obtained under coercive or potentially abusive circumstances, it has discretion to either strike those statements entirely or discount the evidentiary weight to be given to them. In addition, some lower federal courts have concluded the trial court's duty and authority to protect the integrity and fairness of actions extends to communications with a defendant's employees who are not currently or potentially members of the class. The Appellate Court opines that the record demonstrates the trial court in the case was unaware of the need to scrutinize 99 Cents' declarations carefully and was either unaware of or misunderstood the scope of its discretion to either strike or discount the weight to be given the 174 declarations, including the declarations of employees who were not members of the putative classes, if it concluded they were obtained under coercive or abusive circumstances. The Appellate Court concludes the record affirmatively demonstrates the trial court misunderstood its duty to carefully scrutinize the declarations submitted by 99 Cents in opposition to the class certification motion for coercion and abuse, and misunderstood the scope of its discretion to strike or discount the evidentiary weight to be given to those declarations if it found evidence of coercion and abuse. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the orders denying the Plaintiff's motions to strike 99 Cents' declarations and denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On remand, the trial court will reconsider the Plaintiff's motions consistent with the authorities discussed in the Opinion. The Plaintiff will recover her costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/30HHXoF from Leagle.com. Boucher, Raymond P. Boucher, Maria L. Weitz, Neil M. Larsen; Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II and Sahag Majarian II for Plaintiff and Appellant. Munger, Tolles & Olson, Malcolm A. Heinicke -- Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com -- Katherine M. Forster -- Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- and Andrew C. Rubenstein -- Andrew.Rubenstein@mto.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. ABM INDUSTRY: Canas Seeks Proper Wages for Parking Attendants ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO ERNESTO GIL CANAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Case No. 20STCV37443 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 30, 2020), is brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 arising from the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages to parking attendants. The complaint alleges that the Defendants (1) collected unlawful deductions from employees; (2) failed to provide wage statements that supplied all of the information required by Labor Code Section 226(a); (3) failed to pay the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees minimum and overtime wages; (4) failed to timely pay the Plaintiff all wages when due; (5) failed to provide a proper sick leave policy for employees; and (6) failed to Make Security Deposits pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Sections 403, 404, 405, 406 and IWC Wage Order, Sec.9(c); (7) failed to Provide Employment Records; (8) failed to provide records under Code Section 432; and (9) failed to provide records under Code Section 1198.5.2. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a parking attendant in various locations in Los Angeles County beginning on December 27, 2018, until November 15, 2019. ABM Industry Groups, LLC touts itself as a leading provider of integrated facility solutions. Among the services it provides, ABM offers parking valet and transportation and janitorial contractor services to clients across the United States, including throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Lin Zhan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Ave., 17th Fl. Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com lzhan@harrisandruble.com AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Rauls Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN RAULS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-01157-KGB (E.D. Ark., Sept. 29, 2020), is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff contends the Defendant failed to pay him overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each week. He seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's violations. The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Ouachita County. The Defendant is a foreign, for-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ALTERATION GROUP: Deal in Arnutovskaya Labor Suit Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IRINA ARNUTOVSKAYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. ALTERATION GROUP OF NY, LLC, AND RELATED OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, JEREMY MILLER, Defendants, Docket No. 161194/2017, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Robert David Kalish of the New York County Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, including the approval of settlement checks to qualified class members, attorneys' fees and costs, claims administration costs, and for a service award to the Named Plaintiff. On Dec. 19, 2017, the Named Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendants violated the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") Articles 6 and 19 and 12 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCEE") Section 142 by not compensating them for all the hours worked and by maintaining a policy and practice of paying its tailors commissions at a rate lower than the rate promised and further by unlawfully deducting earned wages from Plaintiffs' last paychecks. The Complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) NYLL — minimum wage; (2) NYLL — overtime compensation; (3) NYCEE - unpaid wages; and, (4) breach of contract. In addition to the class-wide claims, the Named Plaintiff alleges the aforementioned individual claim for breach of her employment contract. On March 12, 2019, having heard oral argument, the Court issued an order certifying a class consisting of tailors who worked for ASNY since Dec. 19, 2011. On Nov. 20, 2019, the parties presented to the Court a Proposed Settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved. The Court also authorized publication of the Notice of Class Action Settlement, Claim Form and Release, and the Opt-Out Form. According to the affidavit of Settlement Claims Administrator Tomasz Kulak of Martom Solutions, LLC ("MSLLC"), on Dec. 27, 2019, the Notice Packet was distributed to the 64 Class Members via First Class Mail. Of the 64 Notice Packets distributed, only one Class Member opted out of the Settlement. No Class Members objected to the Settlement. The Fairness Hearing that was originally scheduled for March 25, 2020, was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As per the Notice Packet, all objections to the Settlement were to be submitted by Feb. 25, 2020. According to the moving papers, no objections were filed. Notwithstanding the prior notification, on May 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, mailed a Supplemental Notice to the Class Members informing them that the Court was going to evaluate the Settlement based on written submissions and would schedule a Virtual Fairness Hearing for the Class Members if so requested. None of the Supplemental Notices were returned as undeliverable. No Class Member again objected to the Settlement or requested to appear at a potential Virtual Fairness Hearing. Under the circumstances, the Court deems the right to appear and be heard at the Fairness Hearing to be satisfied and waived. Upon final deliberation, Judge Kalish certified, for settlement purposes, a Class consisting of all individuals who are presently or were formerly employed as tailors by ASNY from Dec. 19, 2011, to the date of the preliminary approval order, which is Nov. 20, 2019. Judge Kalish granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, including: (a) $72,500 for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs -- $38,032.36 of which comes from the Gross Settlement Amount and $34,467.64 of which makes up 33.33% or one third of the Gross Payment; (b) $3,000 for the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff from the Gross Settlement Amount; (c) $2,000 for the settlement of the Named Plaintiff's individual Breach of Contract claim from the Gross Settlement Amount; (d) $29,526.42 for Settlement Checks from the Net Settlement Fund; and (e) $6,787.30 for Claims Administrator's costs from the Net Settlement Fund. The Jdueg approved the appointment of MSLLC as the Settlement Administrator and, upon completion of the payments, approved the payment of $6,787.30 to be payable to MSLLC for the cost of Settlement Administration as part of the second installment. Upon the Effective Date, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety and all members of the Settlement Class who have not excluded themselves from the settlement will be conclusively deemed to have released and discharged Defendants from, and will be permanently enjoined from, directly or indirectly, pursuing and/or seeking to reopen, any and all claims that have been released pursuant to the Settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Decision + Order is available at https://bit.ly/3iCKzu1 from Leagle.com. ALTERYX INC: Faces Chau Class Suit Over 35% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- PETER CHAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTERYX, INC., DEAN A. STOECKER, and KEVIN RUBIN, Case No. 8:20-cv-01886 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding Alteryx's business, operations, and prospects in order to attract investors to purchase or otherwise acquire Alteryx securities between May 6, 2020, and August 6, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (ii) that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (iii) that, as a result and because of the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the Company announced its second quarter 2020 financial results and disappointing growth projections for the third quarter and full year 2020, the Company's share price fell $47.62 per share, or over 28%, to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020. The stock price continued to decline over the next trading session by $12.15 per share, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77 per share, or over 35%. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff says he and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Alteryx, Inc., is a data analytics company that offers a subscription-based platform, with its principal executive offices located in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 POMERANTZ LLP Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Compelled to Produce Excel Report in Mendell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL MENDELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19cv1227-BAS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. In the Joint Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Defendant to produce a single document in Excel format that is believed to be responsive to the Plaintiff's Document Request No. 1. The Excel report was created by the Defendant during the litigation at the direction of the counsel. The Plaintiff claims to have first learned of the existence of the report in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on May 28, 2020. The Defendant has not produced the Excel report, because it believes as follows: (1) the report is not responsive to the Plaintiff's Document Request No. 1; (2) the report qualifies for work product protection; and (3) the Plaintiff waited too long to raise the parties' dispute with the Court. The operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") alleges that the Defendant is a medical transport provider who provided services to the Plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2018. When the Plaintiff was unable to pay the resulting debt, the Defendant began making collection calls to the Plaintiff. The basis for the action is that the Defendant allegedly recorded its collection calls with the Plaintiff and other Debtors without a warning or consent in violation of California law. The parties were originally scheduled to complete class discovery on March 20, 2020. In this regard, the original Scheduling Order states that fact and class discovery are not bifurcated but all class discovery will be completed by all parties on or before March 20, 2020. Thereafter, the deadline for completing class discovery was extended twice. The deadline was first extended to March 24, 2020 for the sole purpose of taking the Plaintiff's deposition. The deadline was again extended to April 2, 2020 solely to complete the depositions of Plaintiff Credence, and Dr. Patil because of logistical and scheduling challenges caused by the COVID-19 virus. The Plaintiff represents that the existence of the Excel report was not known until May 28, 2020, when the Plaintiff took a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendant's representative, Dr. Bhaskar Patil. The Defendant does not dispute its representation in this regard, and there is nothing before the Court indicating that the Plaintiff could have known about the existence of the Excel report before Dr. Patil's deposition. Based on the Plaintiff's representations, Magistrate Judge Crawford finds that the Plaintiff did not wait too long to raise this matter with the Court. Under the circumstances presented, the event giving rise to the dispute is the Plaintiff's discovery of the subject report during Dr. Patil's deposition on May 28, 2020. The Plaintiff's Document Request No. 1 sought production of documents which in any way reference him, the events alleged in the operative pleading, and/or any allegations or defenses asserted in the action. The Plaintiff also served the Defendant with Document Request No. 9, which sought production of all recordings of the Defendant's outbound calls to California cell phone numbers from one year prior to the filing of the action to the present. The Magistrate Judge holds that it is unclear whether the Plaintiff seeks disclosure of the Excel report to be able to contact potential class members by telephone prior to class certification. The Plaintiff does not argue in the Joint Motion that there is a need to contact potential class members prior to class certification to obtain information necessary to meet the burden of proof on any class certification issues. In this regard, the Magistrate notes that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification has already been filed and is currently pending before the District Court. Therefore, without more, the Magistrate Judge finds that the individuals identified in the Excel report are entitled to a limited right to privacy in their telephone numbers. Accordingly, there is good cause to enter a protective order precluding plaintiff from using the telephone numbers in the Excel report to contact the putative class members unless the District Court certifies a class that encompasses the individuals identified in the Excel report. In addition, the Excel report must be produced to the Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order that is already in place to govern the exchange of confidential documents and information between the parties. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Crawford granted the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling the Defendant to produce the subject Excel report. The Defendant must produce the Excel report to the Plaintiff's counsel no later than 10 days after the Order is entered. To protect the limited privacy interests of the putative class, the telephone numbers listed in Excel report may not be used to contact the potential class members unless the District Court certifies a class that includes the individuals identified in the Excel report. In addition, the Excel report must be produced to the Plaintiff's counsel subject to the terms of the Protective Order that was previously entered in the case to govern the exchange of confidential information between the parties. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/30IJDOF from Leagle.com. ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Files Second Amended Class Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bouvy filed a second amended complaint on July 24, 2020 in the case, MICHAEL BOUVY, Plaintiff, v. ANALOG DEVICES, INC., a Massachusetts company, as successor to LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Delaware company; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-881 DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal.). Bouvy filed the SAC after Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Bouvy's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in a June 23, 2020 Order available at https://bit.ly/33A2eyc from Leagle.com. The case arises out of the Plaintiff's putative class action against Analog Devices, Inc. ("ADI"), Linear Technology Corp. ("LTC"), Linear Technology, LLC ("LT LLC"), and Linear Technology Administrative Committee for alleged violations of fiduciary duties imposed by the Employment Retirement Investment Savings Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). The Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 10, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on Sept. 24, 2019. The Defendants manage the Linear Technology 401(k) Plan, an individual-account, defined-contribution retirement plan. Bouvy is a former employee of LTC and a Plan "participant," as defined by 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(7). LTC provided retirement benefits to eligible employees between May 6, 2013, and May 6, 2019. On March 10, 2017, ADI, a Massachusetts Corporation, purchased LTC through a cash and stock transaction, and on or around that time the assets and operations of LTC merged with ADI. LT LLC was formed as a Delaware corporation on May 2, 2017. ADI continues to sell LTC's power-management products. After the merger between LTC and ADI, LTC's past fiduciary liabilities as "Plan Sponsor" and "Plan Administrator" were assigned by the Plan's governing documents to Linear Technology LLC. LTC was the "Plan Sponsor" under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(16)(B), as reported on the Plan's Form 5500 for 2016, and Linear Technology LLC was listed as the "Plan Sponsor" on the form in 2017. The Plaintiff and proposed class members are participants in the Plan. Most participants in 401(k) plans expect that their 401(k) accounts will be their principal source of income after retirement. The Plan is a defined contribution plan, and thus limits employees to investment options selected by the plan's fiduciaries, otherwise known as "designated investment alternatives." Because plan participants can only invest in pre-selected options, the participants bear the risk of poor investment selection choices, whether due to poor performance, high fees, or both. The Plan administrators charge two types of fees for the maintenance and management of investment products: investment management expenses and administrative expenses. Administrative fees account for costs associated with administering the Plan, including recordkeeping, trustee and custodial services, and accounting costs. The cost of recordkeeping services depends on the number of participants in the Plan, rather than the amount of money in each participant's account. At all times referenced in the FAC, the Defendants contracted with third-party administrator Transamerica Retirement Solutions, LLC to serve as the Plan's recordkeeper. Before June 1, 2015, the Plan compensated Transamerica through revenue sharing. Effective June 1, 2015, the Plan began to charge an annual fee of $125 per participant, assessed quarterly. In 2017, the Plan paid Transamerica $542,867 in direct payments for recordkeeping -- approximately $229 per participant. At the end of 2017, the Plan had approximately $616 million in assets and 2,369 participants with active account balances. On average, for plans with 2,000 participants and $200 million in assets, the average recordkeeping fee per participant was $5. In addition to these direct payments, the Plan paid Transamerica over $1 million annually in revenue sharing from mutual funds. Transamerica distributes the funds the Plan invests, and also manages the Plan's investments in the Transamerica funds. Transamerica was also compensated from the investment fees for its proprietary products offered as investment options through the Plan. Throughout the Class Period, the Plan's investment options included twenty mutual funds and two fixed annuity contracts issued by Transamerica Life Insurance Co. At the same time, the Plan's investment expenses were higher than industry averages: at least 18 of the 20 mutual funds offered in 2016 had above-average expenses. Many of these funds held a share class that was between 25 and 116 percent more expensive than readily available, identical mutual fund products. The Plaintiff contends the Plan's participants lost millions of dollars of retirement savings and anticipated retirement income because of the Defendants' failure to rein in the Plan's costs and failure to remove and replace underperforming funds. Based on these alleged facts, the Plaintiff filed a FAC alleging that the Defendants violated ERISA by: (1) breaching their duties of prudence and loyalty by selecting investment options with excessive fees when identical, lower-cost options were available and retaining expensive funds with poor performance histories; (2) breaching their duties of prudence and loyalty by compensating Transamerica with excessive recordkeeping fees; (3) failing to provide disclosures to participants regarding investment and administrative fees; (4) engaging in prohibited transactions with a party in interest; and (5) failing to monitor fiduciaries. In its June 23 Order, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's disloyalty claims under Count I and II, Plaintiff's claims under Count III related to investment fee disclosures, and Plaintiff's claims under Count IV. The balance of the motion is denied. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to identify a separate breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty under Counts I and II. The Court also held that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Count IV for prohibited transactions. APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Turizo Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case titled RYAN TURIZO v. APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. CACE-20-012335, was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, County of Broward, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 3, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-61803-WPD to the proceeding. Apartment Investment & Management Company is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust. The trust owns a geographically diversified portfolio of multifamily apartment properties in the United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Apartment Investment also provides property management and asset management services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by Jacqueline Simms-Petredis, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3200 Tampa, FL 36601 Telephone: (813) 221-2626 Facsimile: (813) 221-7335 E-mail: jsimms-petredis@burr.com dmorales@burr.com; anolting@burr.com - and - Zachary D. Miller, Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP 222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 724-3216 Facsimile: (615) 724-3316 E-mail: zmiller@burr.com agosnell@burr.com BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 19 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu") (NASDAQ: BIDU) between April 8, 2016 and August 13, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9415&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in Baidu you have until October 19, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Partly Compelled to Discovery Responses in Nieves ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL NIEVES, Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 18-2748-JTF (W.D. Tenn.), Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel certain discovery responses from the Defendants. The case is both a class action contract case and an individual suit alleging a violation of federal anti-discrimination law. Dr. Nieves alleges that Baptist discriminated against him in various ways -- withholding his pay, cutting his health insurance, and ultimately ending his employment agreement -- because of his service in the Army Reserve. Dr. Nieves claims that violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. He also claims that Baptist systematically underpays its doctors for the procedures they perform in violation of their employment contracts. He brings a variety of state law claims on a class-wide basis regarding this alleged underpayment. Baptist denies all of these allegations. The parties disagree about various discovery issues. The most significant discovery issue in dispute is the appropriate scope of Baptist's ESI search. The Court has ordered the parties to confer in good faith to explore various possible compromises that may resolve this dispute. That process is ongoing and the Court does not decide any issues directly related to it today. Various concessions made in briefing have mooted other issues raised in the motion. The remaining issues in dispute are: (1) whether Baptist must produce unredacted versions of certain documents that were not listed in its privilege log; (2) whether Baptist has appropriately claimed attorney client privilege over other documents that were listed in its privilege log; and (3) whether Baptist should be required to produce billing records and certain additional documents in response to Request for Production 24. The parties dispute whether five documents Baptist produced to Dr. Nieves were properly redacted. The five documents at issue were not listed in Baptist's initial privilege log. According to a sworn declaration by Dr. Nieves' counsel, he reached out to Baptist's counsel five separate times between Dec. 12, 2019, and the filing of the motion of Feb. 10, 2020, to discuss the omission of these documents from Baptist's privilege log. The declaration claims that Baptist did not substantively respond to those inquiries. Dr. Nieves then filed this motion. In its briefing in response to the motion, Baptist states that the five documents at issue were properly redacted because they contain confidential and irrelevant information that bears no relation to the claims and defenses of this matter. Although Baptist repeatedly asserts these documents are confidential, Baptist has not identified any legal basis for the claim. Baptist spends most of its briefing discussing why the redacted portions of these documents are not relevant. Baptist also states that it has updated its privilege log to include these document. Magistrate Judge Pham holds that this is not the kind of exceptional case in which unilateral redaction is allowed. There is a protective order shielding sensitive business information in the case from improper disclosure. Baptist has not identified any reason why that order is insufficient to protect its interests. That alone makes relevance redactions improper. Furthermore, the redactions Baptist has made for relevance are not small and do not allow a reader to understand what information has been redacted. This portion of the motion to compel is granted. Baptist will produce unredacted versions of every responsive document they have redacted for relevance, including the five documents identified by Dr. Nieves in his motion. The parties next dispute whether the attorney-client privilege covers certain documents that were listed in Baptist's privilege log. As before, a sworn declaration by Dr. Nieves' counsel attests that he attempted to resolve these privilege issues with Baptist many times over a period of months before filing this motion. After the motion was filed, Baptist conceded several of its claims of privilege were in error and produced unredacted documents. The parties still dispute whether five documents are covered by the privilege. The Judge notes that it would be justified in ordering the production of all of the documents under dispute here because of Baptist's failure to meet its burden. However, in recognition of the importance of the rights at issue, he opts for a more limited remedy. He orders that Baptist will re-review the documents that Dr. Nieves claims are not privileged and evaluate in good faith whether these documents are, in fact, privileged. After this review, for those documents Baptist intends to maintain a privilege claim over, it will provide an updated privilege log that describes in detail why Baptist maintains a claim of privilege over those documents in spite of the specific concerns identified by Dr. Nieves. If Dr. Nieves believes Baptist's remaining claims of privilege are improper, the parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve the dispute. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, the meet and confer will occur no later than one week after Dr. Nieves informs Baptist of his continued objection. Should a dispute remain after this meet and confer, Dr. Nieves may file a renewed motion to compel. Finally, the parties disagree about whether Baptist has adequately responded to Request for Production 24. That request calls for all documents related to the Plaintiff's compensation by Baptist during the relevant time period, including dcuments sufficient to Identify the amount of compensation the Plaintiff received for his Personally Performed Professional Services in each quarter of the relevant time period. Baptist objected to the request on a number of grounds, including that it did not describe the documents it sought with reasonable particularity. However, without waiving its objections, Baptist produced a variety of documents related to Dr. Nieves' compensation as well as medical records from all procedures Dr. Nieves performed while at Baptist. Dr. Nieves argues it is not enough and that Baptist should have to also produce: (1) its billing records showing what it charged third-party payors for the procedures Dr. Nieves performed and (2) documents describing how Defendants allocated a particular measure of work performed for various procedures to nurses and other caregivers when the Plaintiff was involved in a procedure, in some fashion. The Judge finds that the request does not meet the reasonable particularity test. Any number of documents may relate to Dr. Nieves' compensation in some way. Request for Production 24 offers no guidance on how Baptist can determine whether a particular document or even a particular category of documents falls within its scope. As applied to the particular categories of documents Dr. Nieves now seeks, the request did not put Baptist on reasonable notice that it needed to produce those documents. This portion of the motion of compel is denied. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pham granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. Unless otherwise specified in the Order, Baptist will provide discovery responses under the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/3d4BokO from Leagle.com. BED BATH: Consolidated or Amended Complaint Due October 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended August 29, 2020, that lead plaintiff Kavin Bakhda is scheduled to file an amended or consolidated complaint by October 20, 2020. A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020 against the Company and three of its officers and/or directors (Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey federal court"). The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead plaintiff is scheduled to file an amended or consolidated complaint by October 20, 2020. Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global 1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey. BENTLEY BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BENTLEY BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08039-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.brianthepekingese.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff, a resident of the Bronx, New York. is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. Bentley sells natural products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017 BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Sheth Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABHI SHETH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01381-JCC (W.D. Wash., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's negligent conduct as the customers' private information that the Defendant collected and maintained have been compromised during the occurrence of ransomware attack and data breach in May 2020. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated users, in order to, (1) address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information, which the Defendant managed, maintained, and secured; (2) assert claims for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third-party; (3) assert claims for failing to identify all information that was accessed; and (4) assert claims for failing to provide the Plaintiff and Class Members with any redress for the data breach. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members, at their own cost, must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit says. Blackbaud, Inc., manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the data obtained by its clients who are, inter alia, schools and non-profit companies, including YMCA of Greater Seattle and KidsQuest Children's Museum, which maintained the Plaintiff's private information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 904 15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: (985) 783-6783 Facsimile: (985) 783-1333 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com BLOOMBERG LP: Adams Sues Over Unlawful OT Pay and Wage Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHEENA ADAMS, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-07724 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and provide accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the class members for all overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant also failed to pay the Plaintiff for their badge time from 2014 to 2018 because it deducted meal breaks from the time reflected in the badge data, which resulted in unpaid hours of work, including overtime hours. Since 2014, the wage statements that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff and the class members do not list the regular hours worked or the rate paid for such hours, nor did they list the accurate number of overtime hours that the Plaintiff and the class members worked. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a global technical support representative in New York from approximately 2012 to October 2019. Based in New York City, Bloomberg L.P. is a multinational mass media corporation that provides financial software tools, such as analytics and equity trading platforms, data services, and news to financial companies and organizations around the world through the "Bloomberg Terminal."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Artemio Guerra, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair St. Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: aguerra@getmansweeney.com BONDZ INC: Mendez Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BONDZ, INC.; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-7486 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 9, 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 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as truck driver. Bondz, Inc., is engaged in the trucking business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5850 Oberlin Driver, Suite 230A San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 - and - Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Approved in Matute ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Matute's Opposed Motion to Continue in the case, FREDY MATUTE, v. BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC. et al., SECTION: "G" (1), Civil Action No. 19-595 (E.D. La.). The case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On Jan. 11, 2013, Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that allows certain class members, including clean-up workers who follow certain procedures set forth in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions. On Jan. 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a BELO Complaint in the Court. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill exposed him to oil, dispersants, and other harmful chemicals while he performed duties as a "Clean-up Worker." That exposure allegedly caused him to suffer permanent injuries, including chronic conjunctivitis, chronic pharyngitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis. On Aug. 22, 2019, the case was transferred from Judge Barbier to Chief Judge Brown. On Sept. 25, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the case for trial on Nov. 16, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting a new scheduling order continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines. On June 8, 2020, BP filed an opposition to the instant motion. The Plaintiff requests that the Court issues a new scheduling order -- continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines -- for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff states that his counsel's law firm required employees to follow countermeasures to prohibit the spread of COVID-19 that have caused an "unprecedented upheaval" in his counsel's workplace. Second, Plaintiff states that his expert toxicologist has a familial issue involving COVID-19, which has delayed her expert report for the case. Third, Plaintiff states that the COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented challenges in preparing the case. Finally, Plaintiff states that BP will not suffer undue prejudice if the Court issues a new scheduling order continuing pretrial and trial deadlines. BP contends that they are sympathetic to the challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet BP states that requests for continuances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. BP argues that the Plaintiff fails to show the required "good cause" for a continuance. First, Magistrate Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently explains why he cannot meet the deadlines in the current scheduling order. Second, the importance of the continuance is apparent. Third, despite BP opposing the Plaintiff's continuance request during the COVID-19 pandemic, BP fails to explain a single prejudicial effect that a continuance would affect upon them. Lastly, a continuance of all deadlines will be granted to cure any potential prejudice caused by the delay in the Plaintiff's ability to produce his expert report. Considering these factors and each party's arguments, the Plaintiff has demonstrated the required good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Considering the foregoing reasons, Judge Brown granted Matute's Opposed Motion to Continue. The parties were directed to contact the Court's case manager to conduct a scheduling conference to set a new trial date and new pretrial deadlines. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://bit.ly/3d3HRfY from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Continuance of Trial Deadlines Okayed in Henriquez ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Arias-Henriquez's Motion for a Continuance in the case, JOSE ARIAS-HENRIQUEZ, v. BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC. et al., SECTION: (G)(5), Civil Action No. 19-9497 (E.D. La.). The case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. On Jan. 11, 2013, Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") that allows certain class members, including clean-up workers who follow certain procedures set forth in the MSA, to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions. On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a BELO Complaint in the Court. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill exposed him to oil, dispersants, and other harmful chemicals while he performed duties as a Clean-up Worker. That exposure allegedly caused the Plaintiff to suffer permanent injuries, including Esophageal Reflux. On Aug. 21, 2019, the case was transferred from Judge Barbier to Chief Judge Brown. On Sept. 25, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the case for trial on Sept. 21, 2020. On June 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting a new scheduling order continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines. On June 10, 2020, BP filed an opposition to the instant motion. The Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a new scheduling order -- continuing all pretrial and trial deadlines -- for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff states that his counsel's law firm required employees to follow countermeasures to prohibit the spread of COVID-19 that have caused an "unprecedented upheaval" in his counsel's workplace. Second, Plaintiff states that his expert toxicologist has a familial issue involving COVID-19, which delayed her expert report for the case. Third, Plaintiff states that the delay in preparing the case is not his fault, contending the COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented challenges. Finally, Plaintiff states that BP will not suffer undue prejudice if the Court issues a new scheduling order continuing pretrial and trial deadlines. BP contends that they are sympathetic to the challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet BP states that requests for continuances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. BP argues that the Plaintiff fails to show the required "good cause" for a continuance. First, Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently explains why he cannot meet the deadlines in the current scheduling order. Second, the importance of the continuance is apparent. Third, despite BP opposing the Plaintiff's continuance request during the COVID-19 pandemic, BP fails to explain a single prejudicial effect that a continuance would affect upon them. Lastly, a continuance of all deadlines will be granted to cure any potential prejudice caused by the delay in the Plaintiff's ability to produce his expert report. Considering these factors and each party's arguments, the Plaintiff has demonstrated the required good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Considering the foregoing reasons, the Court granted Arias-Henriquez's Motion for a Continuance. The parties were directed to contact the Court's case manager to conduct a scheduling conference to set a new trial date and new pretrial deadlines. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://bit.ly/36HoDf0 from Leagle.com. BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAK) between May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Braskem Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (i) Braskem's salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that the Company "ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit filed against it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public Defender's Office, both of the State of Alagoas." The Company disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion [i.e., 6.7 billion reais] to guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the rock salt extraction area in Macei." On this news, Braskem's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at $25.14 per share on April 3, 2020. Finally, on July 9, 2020, during pre-market hours, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates. Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem's mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million in expenses to "definitively" shut down Braskem's salt mining operations. On this news, Braskem's ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%, to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 26, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/braskemsa-bak-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-296/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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. 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. Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP Tel No: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com[GN] CABLEVISION SYSTEM: Gayle Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marlon Gayle filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated August 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Lobbe v. Cablevision System Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-2207, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Lobbe v. Cablevision System Corporation, Case No. 20-3210, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Marlon Gayle is represented by: Angel Antonio Castro, III, Esq. A.A. CASTRO C.L.A.N. PLLC 60 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 234-3177 Defendants-Appellees Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation, CSC Holdings LLC, Altice USA, and Altice Technical Services USA are represented by: Allan Scott Bloom, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 E-mail: abloom@proskauer.com - and - Howard Mark Wexler, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-3332 E-mail: hwexler@seyfarth.com CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending the deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG) Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel No: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] CANADA: Arguments to Certify MMIWG Class Suit to Start September ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Martens, writing for APTN, reports that arguments to certify a class-action lawsuit that alleges the federal government is responsible for finding ways to end the epidemic of violence against missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG) and compensating families who suffered losses were scheduled to start in late September. The action -- Bigeagle vs Her Majesty The Queen, which is seeking $600 million in damages -- was scheduled to be heard in Federal Court in Regina starting Sept. 21. Saskatchewan lawyer Tony Merchant said he can't believe the federal government is fighting the certification. "The Government of Canada has not taken any steps to implement the important recommendations of the Murdered and Missing Inquiry," Merchant said in a news release. "And, making that worse, take the amazing position before the Federal Court of Canada that the case should not be certified and that Canada is not responsible for these wrongs." His plaintiff is Dianne Bigeagle, from Ocean Man First Nation in Sask., whose daughter Danita Faith Bigeagle went missing in Regina on Feb. 11, 2007. Merchant and three lawyers from his firm were set to face off against a team of four lawyers from the Department of Justice. The federal government did not file a statement of defence, the court file shows, and the departments of Indigenous Services and Crown-Indigenous Relations referred APTN New's request for comment on Sept. 15 to Public Safety. From there a spokesperson emailed a statement to APTN attributed to Minister Bill Blair, who is responsible for the RCMP and policing in Canada. "Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately impacted by all forms of violence. This is unacceptable and needs to change," the statement said. "Our government has made the safety and security of First Nations, Inuit and Metis women and girls, LGBTQ+ and Two-Spirit people a priority, and we are working to strengthen existing policies and programs and support future actions to increase their safety." Bigeagle's missing daughter is one of more than 1,200 MMIWG cases -- according to RCMP figures – and as many as 4,000 -- according to activists and families. Even the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which was created and funded by Blair's government from 2016-18, said a lack of hard data made it impossible to identify a firm number. In his statement, Blair said all governments -- Indigenous, federal, provincial, territorial and municipal -- must work together to address the issues highlighted by the inquiry. But the government is opposing the class-action certification "for legal reasons that are specific to this case," he added. "As it is unprecedented in its breadth, is inconsistent with previous rulings surrounding private duty of care, and contains cases where the RCMP is not the police of jurisdiction." Blair said taking this position "in no way" lessens the findings of the national inquiry "nor our commitment to ending this national tragedy." Canada has been chastised for missing a deadline to respond to the national inquiry's calls for justice. APTN first reported the government would miss the deadline to issue a final report action plan. Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett confirmed on May 26 that a national action plan to make life safer for Indigenous women and girls was not going to be ready and blamed the pandemic for the delay despite having a year to plan it. Merchant said the class-action is the only way to hold the government -- and its national RCMP force -- to account for the lack of investigations and prosecutions. The statement of claim, originally filed in June 2018, alleges "systemic negligence" on the part of the RCMP in investigating cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. It further alleges family members suffered mental anguish because of a "negligent" and "lackadaisical" approach to the investigations. The suit is seeking $500 million in damages and $100 million in punitive damages. [GN] CASA TUA: Gomez Seeks Blind's Equal and Full Access to Mobile App ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GOMEZ v. CASA TUA HOTEL & RESTAURANT COMPANY L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-23958-MGC (S.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that the Defendant's mobile application contains digital barriers, which limit the ability of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated blind and visually impaired consumers to access and enjoy its products and services like sighted individuals. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to design and develop its mobile application (app) to be equally and fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. The app's access barriers include: (a) text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided; (b) information about the meaning and structure of the app's content is not conveyed by more than the visual presentation of content; (c) when the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence cannot be programmatically determined; (d) app pages do not have titles that describe topic or purpose; (e) images on the application are not explained to the user with use of a screen reader program; and (f) there is no Accessibility Statement regarding a company policy to assist disabled users found anywhere in the app. As a result of the Defendant's access barriers, the Plaintiff has been denied information that would allow him to access a physical brick and mortar location, according to the complaint. Casa Tua Hotel & Restaurant Company L.L.C. is a company that owns and operates brick and mortar retail stores in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alberto R. Leal, Esq. THE LEAL LAW FIRM, P.A. 8927 Hypoluxo Rd., #157 Lake Worth, FL 33463 Telephone: (561) 237-2740 Facsimile: (561) 237-2741 E-mail: al@thelealfirm.com CENTRAL CLINICAL: Sanders Sues Over Violation of FLSA and BIPA -------------------------------------------------------------- KATIE SANDERS and ZAYNA BARAKAT, on behalf of herself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. CENTRAL CLINICAL LABS, INC. and IMTIAZ AHMAD, an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-05718 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants within the past three years, allege that the Defendants misclassified them as salaried overtime-exempt employees. As a result, the Defendants deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime wages by failing to pay them the proper overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a work week. According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to inform the Plaintiffs and other workers of the limited purposes or length of time for which the Defendants collected, stored, or used fingerprints, and still continued to collect, store, and use employees' biometric data despite no consent from the Plaintiffs allowing the Defendants to collect or store their fingerprint data, thereby, disregarding their statutorily protected privacy rights, as well as continuously exposing them to the risks and harmful conditions. Central Clinical Labs, Inc. provides mobile phlebotomy and mobile Lab services. Imtiaz Ahmad is the President of Central Clinical Labs, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Seth Matus, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 CHASE BANK: $245,000 Deal in Chen ECOA Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY CHEN, Plaintiff, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01082-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement, and motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Jeffrey Chen commenced the class action against Chase Bank in the Superior Court of State of California, County of Alameda on Jan. 28, 2019, alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") under 15 U.S.C. Section 1691 et seq., and seeking punitive damages under the ECOA, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff applied for a credit card issued by Chase. On Sept. 19, 2018, Chase sent the Plaintiff a letter denying his credit application stating that Chase can't approve his request at that time because of previous unsatisfactory relationship with the bank. The Plaintiff alleges that Chase's denial of his credit application constitutes an "adverse action" for which a statement of specific reasons for the action taken or a disclosure of the applicant's right to a statement of specific reasons is required within 30 days of receiving the Plaintiff's credit application. The Plaintiff insists that the letter he received fails to meet the "specific reason" requirement under the ECOA and does not disclose the specific reasons for which his application was denied. Chase removed the action to federal court, the California District Court, because the action arises under ECOA, a federal law. It then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of statutory standing and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss, and two months later, the parties participated in a mediation with retired Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil. While the parties did not settle, they made substantial progress and continued to negotiate over the following weeks. On Aug. 9, 2019, the parties reached a settlement in principle. After two months of extensive negotiations concerning the final terms of the Settlement, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in November 2019. At the preliminary approval hearing, the Court raised concerns regarding the settlement agreement, in particular the costs of settlement administration and the notice. The parties thereafter filed a revised class action settlement agreement and release, and supporting declaration to address the Court's concerns. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in January 2020. The settlement class consists of all natural persons to whom Chase Bank sent a letter giving either previous unsatisfactory relationship with the bank or previous unsatisfactory relationship with the bank or one of the bank's affiliates as the only reason for taking adverse action in connection with a credit card account during the period beginning Jan. 28, 2014 and ending on Nov. 22, 2019. As of June 18, 2020, about 2,982 individuals have submitted valid claim forms, 10 individuals requested exclusion from the settlement, and no objections have been filed. Chase agrees to pay $244,659 for: (1) payments to the Settlement Class, (2) a Class Representative Incentive Award of up to $5,000, and (3) Notice and Settlement Administration Costs. The Settlement Class Consideration is "non-reversionary." The settlement administration costs were estimated at $50,102, but ended up totaling $59,242.46. The costs were higher than anticipated because the 16 percent claims rate is substantially higher than the 7% claims rate predicted, 1,357 individuals who are not class members filed claim forms, and notice packets were mailed to twice as many individuals as predicted. Given this, the Net Settlement Class Consideration is estimated to be $180,416.54, which yields a payment of $60.89 for each claiming class member. In addition to the Settlement Class Consideration, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Plaintiff's counsel may move for attorneys' fees and costs of up to $185,000, to be paid by Chase. The Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs seeking $176,473.93 in fees and $8,526.07 in costs. He contends that the counsels' actual attorneys' fees total $263,957.50. Finally, the Settlement Agreement also provides that the Court will enjoin Chase, for five years from the date of final approval, from using the phrases "previous unsatisfactory relationship with the bank" and "previous unsatisfactory relationship with us or one of our affiliates" in adverse action notices as the sole reason for denying credit card applications or otherwise taking an adverse action in connection with a Chase credit card account. The Plaintiff and the class members agree to release Chase from the Released Claims. In addition, they waive any and all rights under California Civil Code Section 1542 as to the Released Claims; Section 1542 excludes from release those claims which are unknown at the time of the release. Upon further review, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. In addition, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs; specifically, the Court awarded the following: $176,473.93 in attorneys' fees; $8,526.07 in litigation costs; and $5,000 as incentive award to the Plaintiff. In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees, the Class Counsel will file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides the following: The total settlement fund, the total number of class members, the total number of class members to whom notice was sent and not returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of claim forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the number and percentage of objections, the average and median recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to class members, the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment to class members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the amounts distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative costs, the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms of percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any. The Class Counsel will summarize the information in an easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases, and post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the easy-to-read chart, on the settlement website -- https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/3iBa9zC from Leagle.com. CLAIRE'S STORES: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Parker Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DELILAH PARKER and KELVIN HOLMES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.; CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES, INC. and CBI DISTRIBUTING CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-05574 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the personally identifiable information of customers, including the Plaintiffs, in connection with the occurrence of a widespread data breach from at least April 7, 2020, through June 12, 2020. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of the Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect its users' PII, (ii) warn users of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor the Defendants' websites and ecommerce platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. The Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered injury as a result of the Defendants' conduct. These injuries may include: (i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost time, (iv) deprivation of rights they possess under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act; (v) deprivation of rights they possess under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; (vi) the continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII, which (a) may remain available on the dark web for individuals to access and abuse, and (b) remains in the Defendants' possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as the Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII. Claire's Stores Inc. specializes in selling low-price jewelry and accessories to young women and girls. Claire's Boutiques, Inc. and CBI Distributing Corp. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Claire's Stores, Inc. that operate the Claire's ecommerce Web sites.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Leslie Guillon, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com lguillon@justice4you.com CLARITY DIAGNOSTICS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLARITY DIAGNOSTICS, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-at-00937 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received unsolicited calls to his cellular telephone number ending in -6443 beginning April 1, 2019 from the Defendants' telephone numbers (571) 441-3048, (192) 573-2316, (912) 208-5050, (864) 920-0417, and (918) 451-3245. The Defendants allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its calls in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons to purchase the Defendants' services without obtaining their prior express consent. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the unsolicited calls of the Defendants causing them to incur certain charges and invading their privacy, according to the complaint. Clarity Diagnostics, LLC, is a manufacturer and market leader of rapid diagnostic tests, diagnostic equipment, and over-the-counter rapid diagnostic tests that are targeted toward the Continuum of Care, Alternate Care, Acute Care, Laboratory, and OTC markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Alleged Time-Shaving ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOE GALVEZ RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members, v. COLUMBUS RESTAURANT FUND IV, LLC, d/b/a PORTER HOUSE NEW YORK, and MICHAEL LOMONACO, Case No. 1:20-cv-08053 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law, he is entitled to recover from Defendants for discrimination based on his disability. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as dishwasher from August 2, 2018 to the present. The Defendants own and operate two locations at 10 Columbus Circle: Porter House New York, and Center Bar. These locations are operated as a single enterprise (Restaurant).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, are: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Suits in New York Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- Concierge Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the investors suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have been consolidated. On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF") and United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action initiated by Robert Lucas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Lucas Class Action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. The Lucas Class Action complaint alleges that, beginning in March 2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of additional USO shares, USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the Lucas Class Action failed to disclose to investors in USO certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. Plaintiff alleges that USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the Lucas Class Action possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy. The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial. On August 18, 2020, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, motions were filed seeking to consolidate the Lucas Class Action with (i) a purported stockholder class action initiated on June 31, 2020 by Moshe Ephrati, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06010 and in which the same defendants named in the Lucas Class Action were also named as defendants (the "Ephrati Class Action"), and (iii) a purported stockholder class action initiated on August 13, 2020 by Danny Palacios, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06442 and also named the same defendants as in the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class Action (the "Palacios Class Action" and, together with the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class Action, the "Class Actions"). Each of the complainants in the Ephrati Class Action and the Palacios Class Action seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial. The claims made in the Ephrati Class Action and the Palacios Class Action are substantively identical to the Lucas Class Action, except that the putative class period in each of the Ephrati Class Action and Lucas Class Action begins on March 19, 2020, whereas the putative class period in the Palacios Class Action begins on February 25, 2020. The Class Actions have been designated as related, and have been assigned to the same Judge and consolidated into a single case. USCF, USO and the other defendants in the Class Actions intend to vigorously contest the claims made therein and move for their dismissal. Concierge Technologies, Inc. through its wholly owned operating subsidiary Kahnalytics, Inc., is in the business of importing, selling, distributing and installing high-definition digital video recorders with GPS mapping, audio recording, wireless broadcasting, playback and security features as conceptualized to provide historical records of vehicle driving behavior and mobile incidents. The company is based in San Clemente, California. CONSUMER CELLULAR: Kane Seeks to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KANE; and MARY BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. CONSUMER CELLULAR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01558-IM (D. Ore., Sept. 9, 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 call center agents. Consumer Cellular Inc. provides cellular phones and services. The Company offers different phone plans, cell phones, and accessories. Consumer Cellular serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane Paulson, Esq. PAULSON COLETTI TRIAL ATTORNEYS, PC 1022 NW Marshall St., Ste. 450 Portland, OR 97209-2989 Telephone: (503) 226-6361 E-mail: jane@paulsoncoletti.com CORE CIVIC: Court Dismisses Bacon Prisoners Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed without prejudice the case, MICHAEL A. BACON, et al., Petitioners v. CORE CIVIC, et al., Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-JAD-BNW (D. Nev.). Petitioners Bacon and Shannon K. Kane have submitted what they have styled as a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. They state that they are in custody at Southern Nevada Detention Center, a private prison, serving time for federal sentences or probation violations. However, Judge Dorsey finds that neither Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. As a result, the matter has not been properly commenced and is dismissed without prejudice. Even if the action were not being dismissed as improperly commenced, the Judge holds that it would likely be dismissed as the result of several other defects. First, the petition seeks class certification, but Bacon has been advised in other federal actions that neither he nor Kane may act as an attorney on behalf of any class by filing pleadings or otherwise litigating on behalf of a class. Moreover, the Petitioners' main claims are that their conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic violate their Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights and Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference to their health and safety. But those are civil-rights violations, not challenges to the validity of their convictions or sentences for which habeas relief might be available. The Petitioners also argue that they are entitled to relief under the CARES Act. However, the CARES Act does not give any inmate the right to release to home confinement, and it is the Bureau of Prisons, not the courts, who have the authority to transfer inmates to home confinement. And, again, the issue of home confinement is not a challenge to the validity of a sentence or conviction and does not fall within federal habeas corpus review. Thus, it does not appear that the petition states a claim for which habeas relief may be granted. Based on the foregoing, Judge Dorsey dismissed without prejudice the action. The Judge denied the certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would not find the Court's dismissal of the improperly commenced action without prejudice to be debatable or incorrect. The Judge denied as moot the Petitioners' two motions for expedited review. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/30FIs2p from Leagle.com. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Mai Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Shop Cards ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW MAI and ALLAN MAI, individually and on behalf of the general public and all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01161013-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' conduct of marketing shop cards in a deceptive and illegal manner in violation of the California Code of Civil Procedure and the California Business & Professions Code. The complaint alleges that the Defendants had engaged in unlawful practices of marketing, selling, and issuing Costco Shop Cards by forcing its customers, like the Plaintiffs, to either forfeit their shop card balances or spend more money than they would otherwise spend, thus, unfairly increasing Costco revenues at their customers' expense. The Plaintiffs contend that the conduct of the Defendants constitutes a flagrant violation of the law that was intended and designed to protect consumers from the very practice that the Defendants had been engaged in and continue to engage in. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Arielle M. Canepa, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com COTY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY) Investors Affected : October 3, 2016 - May 28, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Coty Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Coty’s financial statements and Defendants’ statements about Coty’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/coty-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9419&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Putative Class Suit Ongoing in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- CPI Aerostructures, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit initiated by Mark A. Rodriguez and Russell Garret. On February 24, 2020, Mark A. Rodriguez, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Douglas McCrosson, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Vincent Palazzolo, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On February 25, 2020, Russell Garret, a purported stockholder, filed a second putative class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. McCrosson and Palazzolo, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each plaintiff sought to represent a class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from May 15, 2018 to February 14, 2020. On May 5, 2020, the court consolidated these two lawsuits. The court also appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On May 20, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days of the Company's issuance of its restated financials. The restatement was issued on August 25, 2020. On September 24, 2020, the consolidated amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") was filed by the lead plaintiff on behalf of two plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's offering conducted on or about October 16, 2018 (the "Offering") (the "Securities Act Class"); and (ii) purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Exchange Act Class"). The Amended Complaint retains the Company, Mr. McCrosson, and Mr. Palazzolo as defendants; it adds as defendants Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR, which provided services in connection with the Company's October 16, 2018 offering of its common stock. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by negligently permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making false and misleading statements in the Company's periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018 through February 14, 2020, inclusive. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; rescission or a rescissory measure of damages; unspecified equitable or injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. Founded in 1980, CPI Aerostructures, Inc. is a sub-assembly manufacturer servicing the commercial and military sector of the aircraft industry. The company is based in Edgewood, New York. DANNY & JIMMY'S: Fails to Pay FLSA Mandatory Wages, Herrera Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA HERRERA, aka VERONICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DANNY & JIMMY'S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, A/K/A PANDORA MEN'S CLUB; and BRANDON CROSBY, Case No. 3:20-cv-02804-C (N.D. Tex., Sept. 9, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as dancer. Danny & Jimmy's Entertainment, LLC, a/k/a Pandora Men's Club, operates as a strip club featuring female exotic dancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com DDT CONCRETE: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Sensing Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN SENSING, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees v. DDT CONCRETE, INC. a Tennessee Corporation, and MICHAEL WALLACE, individually, Case No. 3:20-cv-00811 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants erroneously classified him and the putative class as "independent contractors" exempt from the overtime provisions, thus, denied them of being paid at one and a half times their base rate for all compensable time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid construction worker during the previous three years. DDT Concrete, Incorporated, is a company based in Tennessee, which offers concrete construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, 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 nbishop@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com DIAMOND PET FOODS: Faces Spivey Fraud Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Diamond Pet Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Spivey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Diamond Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01788-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna. A scheduling conference is set for December 14, 2020, before Judge Selna. Diamond Pet Foods, Inc., operates as a pet food company based in Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa A. White, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 552-0049 E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com will@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Encino, CA 91436-1020 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon FDUTPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as LEONARD LEON, MELISSA MARLENE SANABRIA RODRIGUEZ AND RAMON SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ TORRES, AND MATTHEW PAUL SCHWERI AND DURIA R. RODRIGUEZ SCHWERI, JAMIE HEINDL and JEANNETTE ROTH, as individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated v. DISNEY DESTINATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2020-CA-009543-O, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-01780 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act including placing unauthorized holds on the Plaintiffs' bank accounts for varying amounts, intentionally prioritizing non-annual passholders for access to its parks and limiting annual passholders' access, and creating barriers that hindered many Class members from cancelling their passes. Disney Destinations, LLC, is a company that conceives, builds, and manages theme parks and vacation resorts, with its principal place of business in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq. HILL WARD HENDERSON 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-3900 Facsimile: (813) 221-2900 E-mail: dennis.waggoner@hwhlaw.com julie.mcdaniel@hwhlaw.com - and – Christopher A. Cole, Esq. Andrew Pruitt, Esq. Julia Milewski, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004-2595 Telephone: (202) 624-2701 E-mail: ccole@crowell.com apruitt@crowell.com jmilewski@crowell.com ECKERT SEAMANS: Montgomery Sues Over Investment Scheme by LaForte ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MONTGOMERY; LYNNE LAPIDUS; HENRY BARTH; LAURIE HAIRE; GLENN FRIEDMAN; ROSALYE FRIEDMAN; BETTI JANE CUOMO; ANTHONY CUOMO; MARK HERON; and RAYMOND JANNELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC; JOHN W. PAUCIULO; MICHAEL C. FURMAN; JOHN GISSAS; and DEAN VAGNOZZI, Case No. 1:20-cv-23750-DPG (S.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their role in an investment scheme orchestrated by convicted felon Joseph LaForte through his company, Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. d/b/a Par Funding. According to the complaint, Par Funding provided merchant cash advances to small businesses, including hundreds of businesses in Florida. Par Funding funded those advances with investor money that flowed through numerous investment funds set up by brokers, advisers and others who recruited those investors. Defendants Vagnozzi, Furman and Gissas are three of those individuals, who set up funds through which the Plaintiffs' and class members' money was invested into Par Funding. The promissory note investments offered to and purchased by the Plaintiffs and class members were unlawful, unregistered securities. As a result, the Plaintiffs and class members believed their investments were relatively safe. Had they known about these misrepresentations and omissions, or the other misrepresentations and omissions, they would not have invested, according to the complaint. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs' and class members' investments are worthless and they have stopped receiving any proceeds from those investments. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC is a law firm. The Firm's practice areas include labor and employment, environmental, energy, construction, tax, real estate, and intellectual property law.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Victoria J. Wilson, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER GROSSMAN LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami Center, 22nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 - and - Scott L. Silver SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com EMPIRE HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Del Valle FLSA Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA DEL VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE HOME HEALTH CARE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04335 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 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 Del Valle was employed by the Defendant as home health worker. Empire Home Health Care Inc. owns and operates a business that provides home health services to clients in and around Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PEABF Wants Subpoena in Pelletier Suit Quashed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lead Plaintiff Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago moves the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for an order quashing the Defendants' subpoena directed to Northern Trust Corporation in the shareholder securities class action captioned as ALEXANDRE PELLETIER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, RAJIV KANISHKA LIYANAARCHCHIE DE SILVA, SUKETU P. UPADHYAY, AND PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, Case No. 2:17-cv-05114-MMB (E.D. Pa.). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Endo International PLC provides specialty healthcare solutions. The Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes pharmaceutical products and generic drugs. Endo International offers its products to the medical and healthcare industries around the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor E. Muzzy, Esq. JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ LLP 150 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 327-3450 E-mail: tmuzzy@jbosh.com - and - Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Javier Bleichmar, Esq. Evan A. Kubota, Esq. Benjamin F. Burry, Esq. Thayne Stoddard, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com jbleichmar@bfalaw.com ekubota@bfalaw.com bburry@bfalaw.com tstoddard@bfalaw.com - and - John A. Kehoe, Esq. KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19012 Telephone: (215) 792-6676 E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com EXTREME CONSCIOUSNESS: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE ROMERO, individually and on behalf all all others similarly situated v. EXTREME CONSCIOUSNESS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07191-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, http://www.mountainhighoutfitters.com/,is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. Extreme Consciousness, Inc., was founded in 1999. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of sporting goods, sporting equipment, bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories.[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 FASTLY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastly, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-06454, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Fastly securities between May 6, 2020, and August 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Class"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Fastly securities during the class period, you have until October 26, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. Fastly's edge cloud platform purportedly enables "customers to create great digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing, serving, and securing [its] customers' applications as close to their end-users as possible." The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) that Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (ii) that there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (iii) that, as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 5, 2020, after market close, Fastly held its second quarter ("Q2") 2020 earnings conference call. During the call, Defendants disclosed that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest customer in Q2 2020 and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020. This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed by the Chinese government. Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national security concerns. As Fastly's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any ban of the TikTok app by the US would create uncertainty around our ability to support this customer[,]" and "the loss of this customer's traffic would have an impact on our business." On this news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28 per share, or approximately 17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92 per share, to close at $89.64 per share on August 6, 2020. Fastly's shares continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning TikTok, declining another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 per share on August 7, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Leaky Sunroof Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that the ongoing class action lawsuit between David Cox and Chrysler has been settled. According to U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni's order, Fiat Chrysler automobiles (FCA) has agreed to pay attorney's fees, costs and an incentive reward separately from the class member's injunctive relief. According to Judge Bongiovanni, the class members (plaintiffs) will be awarded $350,000 for attorneys' fees and $128,873.79 for costs. The Court also approved the $4,000 incentive award that will be paid by FCA and given to Cox. The lawsuit against Chrysler, was filed in 2014 by Cox, who alleged the manufacturer was negligent in disclosing to owners that regular maintenance is needed on the sunroof drain tubes of affected vehicles. The Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300, from model years 2009 to present were named in the class action complaint. Both parties came close to a settlement in November 2019. However there were additional motion hearings prior to the final settlement being ordered. FCA previously stated it has no objections to the financial relief the plaintiffs sought after. Background In his class action complaint, Cox stated that he had owned a 2010 Jeep Patriot for less than a year before the sunroof began leaking, which damaged the interior. "Cox brought his vehicle in to the Chrysler dealer's service department to service the sunroof leak immediately. The Chrysler dealer replaced the radio and cleaned out the sunroof drain tubes," a portion of his complaint reads. According to court documents, Cox's sunroof continued to leak after the dealer cleaned out the sunroof drain tubes. In June 2013 Cox brought his vehicle into the Chrysler service department again. This time Chrysler allegedly refused to repair the sunroof leak under the warranty. It stated that clogged drain tubes is a maintenance problem and does not fall under its warranty. According to the class action complaint, Cox claims he was never told by Chrysler that the vehicle's sunroof drain tubes would need routine maintenance. Chrysler responded by denying most of the allegations that were made against the company. [GN] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending the deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Lewis Kahn Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel No: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL: Faces Von Heppinstall Suit in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC VON HEPPINSTALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRSTSTATES FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-04324 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 3, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. FirstStates Financial Services Corp. is a financial services company that specializes in medical billing and receivables management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com FLOR DE MAYO: Faces Barragan Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL BARRAGAN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FLOR DE MAYO, INC. (D/B/A FLOR DE MAYO), PHILIP CHU, NELSON CHU, and JOSE CHU, Case No. 1:20-cv-08068 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020), is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for all hours worked; to maintain accurate record keeping of the hours worked; to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay wages; and to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed as a merchandise stocker and delivery dispatcher at the restaurant located at 2651 Broadway, in New York City from approximately 2006 until April 2020. Flor de Mayo, Inc., is a company that owns and operates a Chinese-Latino restaurant under the name Flor de Mayo, located in New York City.[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 GILEAD SCIENCES: FWK Suit Alleges Monopoly in cART Drug Market -------------------------------------------------------------- FWK HOLDINGS, LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; and E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-06793 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated accusing the Defendants of violating the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to acquire and maintain a monopoly in the market for combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimen drugs since December 2004. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, and wrongfully attempted to acquire and/or maintain monopoly power by: (a) entering into and abiding by the illegal No-Generics Restraints; (b) entering into and abiding by the illegal post-patent-expiration royalty provisions; (c) delaying the improvement of Stribild and artificially raising its price in order to drive patients to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-based fixed dose combination drugs that it had shielded from competition; d. Delaying the improvement of standalone TAF, also in furtherance of the scheme to drive patients to the protected fixed dose combination drugs that it had shielded from competition; (e) abusing the regulatory process, by withholding an HIV indication from standalone TAF, in order to raise rivals' costs and delay their entry into the market; (f) causing delayed entry of generic versions of Viread, Truvada, and Atripla; and (g) obtaining a patent-term extension on the '791 Patent, despite having intentionally delayed the development and approval of TAF as part of the anticompetitive scheme. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members paid more for cART regimen drugs than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and sustained damages in the form of overcharges for their cART regimen drugs requirements. FWK Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business located in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a research-based biopharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business at 333 Lakeside Drive, in Foster City, California. Gilead Holdings, LLC is a biopharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business in Foster City, California. Gilead Sciences, LLC is a biopharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business in Foster City, California. Gilead Sciences Ireland UC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of is a biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, Inc., with a principal place of business in County Cork, Ireland. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is an American pharmaceutical company, with a principal place of business located in New York City. E. R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, with a principal place of business in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Patrick B. Clayton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 3708 Clay Street San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 751-4193 Facsimile: (415) 788-0706 E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com pbc@scarpullalaw.com - and – Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Karen S. Halbert, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq. William R. Olson, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us williamolson@robertslawfirm.us - and – Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 1910 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Peekya Sues Over Android App Monopoly ------------------------------------------------- PEEKYA SERVICES, INC., on behalf of itself and the proposed class, v. GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED; AND GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED, Case No. 3:20-cv-06772 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by Google's unlawful anticompetitive conduct and an order enjoining its unlawful practices. The Plaintiff contends that although Google touts its role in creating a marketplace for software developers, those developers in fact have no choice. Google has a monopoly in the market for Android app stores, which it has unlawfully maintained through anticompetitive conduct. As a result of its monopoly power and the anticompetitive restraints it has imposed on device manufacturers, app developers and consumers, Google has been able to extract from developers a supracompetitive 30% tax on paid apps downloaded from the Play Store as well as in-app purchases for products and services. Just 12 years after its launch, the Google Play Store -- Google's applications store for mobile phones and tablets using the Android operating system -- is now home to 2.96 million apps, making it the biggest app store in the world. While Google developed some of those apps itself, the vast majority were created by independent app developers. The Plaintiff Peekya is a Florida corporation that is a party to and has complied with the Google-developer contracts. Peekya developed and maintains an app called "Peekya" that has been and currently is distributed through the Play Store. Google is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff Peekya Services, Inc. and the Proposed Class are: Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Samantha J. Stein, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com sstein@hausfeld.com - and - Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Katie R. Beran, Esq. Scott A. Martin, Esq. Irving Sche, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7144 E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com kberan@hausfeld.com smartin@hausfeld.com ischer@hausfeld.com - and - Michael Lewis, Esq. THE LEWIS FIRM PLLC 1300 I Street NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 355-8895 Facsimile: (888) 430-6695 E-mail: mlewis@lewis-firm.com GREEN DAY: Faces McLanahan TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls & Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCLANAHAN and CAMERON MCLANAHAN, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. GREEN DAY POWER, Case No. 2:20-at-00941 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited telephone calls and sending unsolicited automated text messages to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant begun contacting them on June 3, 2019, shortly thereafter Plaintiff Cameron called the Defendant to inform the company that he rejected its bid for the installation of solar panels at his home, and lasting through January 9, 2020. Many of the Defendant's calls were automated, artificial, or prerecorded. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff Cameron requested the Defendant to stop contacting him, the Defendant however continued texting Plaintiff Cameron an advertisements. The Plaintiffs contend that they never requested, desired, permitted, or otherwise provided their prior express written consent to the Defendant to call and transmit texts to his cellular telephone. Because of the Defendant's numerous unsolicited calls and texts, the Plaintiffs incurred expenses to their cellular wireless service, wasted data storage capacity, as well as suffered the nuisance, waste of time, aggravation, invasion of privacy, and intrusion upon their seclusion, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Michael McLanahan is the primary subscriber to the cellular service family plan that received all of the Defendant's calls and texts. Plaintiff Cameron McLanahan is Michael's brother and uses the same cellular telephone number. Green Day Power provides solar solutions for homeowners in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Chandler Visher, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER 268 Bush St., #4500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 901-0500 Fax: (415) 901-0504 E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com - and – Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: 847-368-1500 Fax: 847-368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com GRUMA CORP: Faces Govea Suit Over Misleading Labels of Products --------------------------------------------------------------- IRIS GOVEA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. GRUMA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-08585-MWF-JC (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's misleading business practices with respect to the sale of Guerrero products that contain Mexican representations in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has marketed and sold the Guerrero products with labeling, packaging, and advertising that make references to Mexico, and by using Spanish words. The products' labeling, packaging, and marketing led the Plaintiff and other consumers to reasonably believe that they were purchasing tortillas and other products that are made in Mexico, when in reality the products are not made in the said country. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant's conduct is intentional to target consumers, who are interested in purchasing tortillas and other products from Mexico, and to serve its profit-maximizing interests. Based in Irving, Texas, Gruma Corporation manufactures and distributes corn flour, corn tortillas, and related products such as wraps and corn chips through roughly 25 production plants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com rglezakos@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Defends Stockholder Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guidewire Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020, that the company is defending against a putative securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California initiated by its stockholder. On July 24, 2020, one of the Company's stockholders filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of its current or former officers and directors. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' time to respond has been extended by agreement of the parties until the court has appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff and an operative complaint has been identified. The deadline for filing a request to be appointed lead counsel is September 23, 2020. The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Guidewire Software, Inc. delivers the platform Property and Casualty ("P&C") insurers trust to engage, innovate, and grow efficiently. Guidewire’s platform combines core operations, digital engagement, analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications delivered as a cloud service or self-managed software. The company is based in San Mateo, California. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Coffee Sues Over Excessive Premium -------------------------------------------------------------- REJOICE! COFFEE COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., a Connecticut corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06789 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2020), seeks to remedy the Defendants' unfair business practice of unjustly profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic by collecting and/or retaining excessive, unfair premiums in violation of California’s inherent public policy limiting insurers to a fair rate of return. The Plaintiff contends Hartford has continued to collect excessive premiums and failed to issue appropriate refunds. While many industries and companies have been decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic, commercial property and casualty insurers like Hartford and its wholly-owned subsidiary Sentinel Insurance have experienced a windfall. Hartford's premiums are calculated based on the risks associated with type, volume, and location of certain business operations. As a result of the substantial reduction or elimination of business operations beginning in March 2020, the premiums charged by The Hartford are well in excess of a fair rate of return. Beginning in March 2020, California health authorities began to enforce strict social distancing measures in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19, including the closing of nonessential businesses and strict shelter-in-place orders that prevented most people from leaving their homes for extended periods of time. Rejoice! conducted business at certain insured commercial premises, including roasting coffee beans for retail and wholesale and operating coffee shops, prior to the shelter in place orders. Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance company. The Hartford is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in its namesake city of Hartford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq. Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq. BERDING & WEIL LLP 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925 838-2090 Facsimile: 925 820-5592 E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com fhagen@berdingweil.com - and - David M. Birka-White, Esq. Robert S. Robinson, Esq. BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES 178 E. Prospect Avenue Danville, CA 94526 Telephone: (925) 362-9999 Facsimile: (925) 362-9970 E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com rob@robrobinsonlaw.com - and - John D. Green, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 E-mail: jgreen@fbm.com HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL: Russell HIPAA Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SHERRY RUSSELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL BROADWAY CAMPUS and CIOX HEALTH, LLC, Case No. EF2020-2203, was removed from the New York Supreme Court, County of Ulster, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on September 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01204-GLS-ATB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of federal law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), by overcharging the Plaintiff and Class members for electronic copies of medical records. Healthalliance Hospital Broadway Campus is a medical center with a principal place of business in Ulster County, New York. Ciox Health, LLC is a healthcare information management company with headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Gilad Bendheim, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com gilad.bendheim@kirkland.com HOME DEPOT: Mendiola Suit Moved From M.D. Florida to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TRAVIS MENDIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01561, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on September 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-04027-ELR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), by failing to provide the Plaintiff and the putative Class members with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a qualifying event as defined by the statute. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., is a home improvement retailer in the United States, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and – Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP) between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 21, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Insperity investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Insperity class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1902.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Insperity had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (3) as a mitigating measure, Insperity would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1902.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome [GN] INTEL CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminded investors of the upcoming September 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC) securities between October 25, 2019 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Intel investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation." On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.81, or approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that, as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities, you may move the Court no later than September 28, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] INTEL CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company")(NASDAQ:INTC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and indexed under 20-cv-05549, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Intel securities between April 23, 2020, and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Intel securities during the class period, you have until September 28, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Intel is a technology company that provides computing, networking, data storage, and communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, Client Computing Group, and All Other segments. According to Intel, its 7-nanometer CPU technology is the next generation following Intel's 10-nanometer technology. Intel claims that 7-nanometer technology offers double the area efficiency of 10-nanometer products, and will offer 20% higher performance per watt. In May 2019, Intel projected to ship its first 7-nanometer products in 2021. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (ii) that, as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (iii) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed production delays for its 7-nanometer products after the Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] seven-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation." On this news, Intel's share price fell $9.81 per share, or approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] JCF RESIDENCES: Atwood Sues Over Denied FMLA Leave & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANI ATWOOD v. JCF RESIDENCES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, JCF RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN FITZMAURICE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00056 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for the damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, as amended by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Defendants' breach of contract and promissory estoppel. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants, lost her childcare for one of her two children due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, as a result, was forced first to telecommute some days and ultimately to request leave provided under the FFCRA, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. The Plaintiff says she was denied the leave she requested and the Defendants even terminated her employment shortly after she made the request. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants to handle home design development from February 2018 until June 4, 2020, when the Defendants informed her via email of the termination of her employment. JCF Residences Management Company, LLC, is a Spring Hill, Tennessee-based company that is part of the multi-family real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Can't Compel Medical Records of Susan Chamlin ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW CHAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19cv3852 (AJN) (DF) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to compel production of Susan Chamlin's medical records. The putative class action, alleging that the Defendants engaged in false and misleading labeling of a food product, in violation of New York law, has been referred to the New York District Court by the Hon. Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J., for general pretrial supervision. Currently before the Court is a motion by the Defendants to compel compliance with a subpoena served on non-party, Ms. Chamlin, the wife of Plaintiff Chamlin. In particular, the Defendants seek production of certain of Ms. Chamlin's medical records, on the grounds that those medical records are non-privileged and relevant to the claims asserted by Plaintiff in the action. Ms. Chamlin, for her part, objects to production of her medical records, based on her assertion that those records are protected by the doctor-patient privilege. The Court held telephone conferences on the Defendants' motion on June 3 and June 4, 2020. In support of their motion, the Defendants argue that (1) although Ms. Chamlin would otherwise be entitled to assert the New York doctor-patient privilege over communications with her doctor, the medical records sought should not be found to be privileged in this instance because the Plaintiff -- Ms. Chamlin's husband -- attended Ms. Chamlin's relevant medical appointments with her, thereby vitiating the privilege; and (2) even if Ms. Chamlin's medical records retain privileged status, the privilege has been waived by the Plaintiff's deposition testimony that he purchased the Defendants' product for the first time only hours after receiving a recommendation for the product from Ms. Chamlin's doctor -- testimony that, according to Defendants, has placed those communications "at-issue" in the case. As to the Defendants' first argument, that the presence of Plaintiff at Ms. Chamlin's appointments renders the communications with her physician non-privileged, Magistrate Judge Freeman notes that the presence of a third party is not necessarily fatal to the applicability of the doctor-patient privilege under New York law. She concludes that the presence of a spouse at a doctor's appointment is consistent with an intention to keep such communications confidential, and that Ms. Chamlin's communications with her physician in the presence of her husband are therefore privileged. Although the Defendants further contend that the Plaintiff's willingness to testify at his deposition about the appointment demonstrates that Ms. Chamlin did not intend to keep the conversation confidential, the Magistrate Judge is not persuaded that conduct by the Plaintiff (who is not the holder of the privilege) is compelling evidence of Ms. Chamlin's own intentions. As to the Defendants' second argument, that Plaintiff has put the privileged communications "at issue" in the case, the Magistrate Judge is equally unpersuaded. Essentially, the Defendants are making a relevance argument, contending that the communications would tend to undermine the Plaintiff's claim that, in his decision to purchase the Defendants' product, he relied on the information contained on the product's packaging, and, relatedly, that the labeling was material to his purchase decision. That is insufficient to give rise to an "at-issue" waiver. For all of the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Freeman denied the Defendants' motion to compel production of Ms. Chamlin's medical records. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/34ssqKk from Leagle.com. KNOX COUNTY, TN: Obtains Judgment on Pleadings in Hicks Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN HICKS, Plaintiff, v. KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-538-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Thomas A. Varlan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case is a counsel-filed proposed prisoner class action lawsuit for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On March 18, 2020, the Court entered an order screening the complaint, finding that only Plaintiff Hicks' claim for injunctive relief arising out of his allegation that Defendant Knox County's video visitation policy violates his constitutional rights would proceed herein, and denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Now before the Court is Defendant Knox County's motion for judgment on the pleadings in which it asserts that the Court should dismiss the action due to the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and/or as moot. The Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion and his time for doing so has passed. As such, the Plaintiff waived any opposition thereto. In support of its motion, Defendant Knox County filed an affidavit from Brian Bivens, the Assistant Chief of the Knox County Sheriff's Department, in which he testifies that the Plaintiff, whom he names as John Kevin Hicks, went into the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC") on Feb. 27, 2020. Mr. Bivens also testifies that TDOC's felony offender database, https://apps.tn.gov/foil-app/results.jsp, states that John Kevin Hicks is currently incarcerated in the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex, which the Court has confirmed. Judge Varlan holds that prisoner claims for injunctive and/or declaratory relief regarding issues in a prison facility are moot when inmate is no longer incarcerated at that facility. Moreover, if a case in federal court loses its character as an actual, live controversy at any point during its pendency, it is said to be moot. Should that occur, the case is no longer within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and therefore must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Varlan granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that the action will be dismissed as moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/33BTgjL from Leagle.com. LDA DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Mendez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AGUSTIN MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LDA DESIGNS, INC. and ANTHONY CALAMUSA, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-04555 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2002 until February 2020 to perform primary duties, such as laying bricks and pouring cement. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 57 or more hours per week for the Defendants without being compensated of his lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times of his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40. Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep accurate payroll records and post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wages requirements. LDA Designs, Inc., provides building remodeling services. The company is owned and operated by Anthony Calamusa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 LEND LEASE: Mismanages Housing at MCB Camp Lejeune, Johnson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1ST SGT SCOTT JOHNSON, LINDSEY JOHNSON, SSGT GARRETT BURN, KALIE BURN, CPL WILLIAM LEWIS, LAKIN LEWIS, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LEND LEASE (US) PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS LLC, LEND LEASE (US) PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS HOLDINGS LLC, AMCC MANAGING MEMBER LLC, ATLANTIC MARINE CORPS COMMUNITIES LLC, AMCC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, ATLANTIC MARINE CORPS COMMUNITIES PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, and WR SOUTH LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00174-D (E.D.N.C., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' engagement in unfair and deceptive trade practices in marketing and leasing homes to the Plaintiffs and proposed class members at MCB Camp Lejeune. The Defendants, consisting of Lend Lease and Winn entities, own and manage the housing units at the MCB Camp Lejeune under the terms of a 50-year ground lease with the United States Department of the Navy. The Plaintiffs note that the government placed its trust in these private companies, who promised both the Navy and the military families that they would provide excellent quality housing, which is necessary so that servicemembers, including the Plaintiffs, can maintain morale and focus on protecting the nation. According to the complaint, after being given sole responsibility, the Defendants placed profits over tenants as the rental housing has been plagued by problems consistent with "slumlord" property management, including water intrusion, mold, mildew, filth, insect pests, broken and unreliable HVAC and appliances, and other issues. The military housing property management has allegedly became a profit center for the Defendants, as they took the full Basic Allowance for Housing ("BAH") for each servicemember tenant each month. The Plaintiff class representatives exemplify the negative effects that the unfair and deceptive residential leasing business model has caused, and that the Defendants' failure to abide by their promises to tenants and to the government has caused. The Defendants consist of entities associated with the Lend Lease construction and property development multinational based in Australia, and the Winn property management company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The Lend Lease and Winn organizations formed a joint venture to build, own and manage the privatized military housing at MCB Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Janet R. Coleman, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com jrc@rhinelawfirm.com - and - David Hilton Wise, Esq. John J. Drudi, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM PLC 10476 Armstrong Street Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro Jdrudi@wiselaw.pro - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Kenya Reddy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com KReddy@ForThePeople.com - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com LME INC: Arnold WARN Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRIAN ARNOLD, ROBERT BECK, BOBBY BROCKHOUSE, WILLIAM "KEITH" CALICOTT, LHOUCINE CHAL, CHRISTOPHER CURTIS, SHEYENNE CURTIS, CHRISTIAN DAWSON, INES GARZA, DANIEL GREGORY, BONNIE GUSTASON, RONALD GUSTASON, TIMOTHY HOLT, DAVID MESSBARGER, KIRK RAYMOND, ANDREW RICHARDSON, JULIE SNEAD, GIOVANNI VARGAS, DARIAN WALLER, and JAMES WEST, on their own behalves and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. LME, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00555, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-02082-JRT-ECW to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to give its employees notice of its closures more than 60 days in advance as mandated by law. LME, Inc., is a less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking company with its principal place of business located at 500 W. County Road D., in New Brighton, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan M. Paulus, Esq. Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 225 Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 E-mail: r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com LOANCARE LLC: Faces Landers RESPA Suit Over Improper Escrow Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD LANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOANCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00284 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 30, 2020), is brought under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act arising from the Defendant's charging of improper escrow fees. The Defendant is the servicer of a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust secured by the Plaintiff's real property, located at 4612 Malinta Lane, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on behalf of Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC. As part of its servicing duties for all loans relevant to the complaint, the Defendant collects and remits fees relative to the escrow account established pursuant to the Deed of Trust. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all putative class members live in municipalities within the State of Tennessee that charge water quality fees. These water quality fees have been found to be a user fee and not a tax. Despite these edicts by various governmental entities in the State of Tennessee, the Defendant has been systematically paying these water quality fees as a portion of the escrow amounts for the loan and the loans of each putative Class member, imposing these fees as an escrow requirement, and improperly inflating the amount of money that the Plaintiff and Class members' must place in their escrow account for years, collecting interest on the excess funds and converting funds that should be in the hands of borrowers whose loans are serviced by LoanCare. The Plaintiff has a private right of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(2)(C) for the claimed breaches and such action provides for remedies, including actual damages, costs, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees, the suit says. LoanCare, LLC, is a mortgage servicing company with headquarters in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANN LAW P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: A. Pascale Named Sub. Plaintiff in Briggs --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Deshawn Briggs, et al., Plaintiffs, v. County of Maricopa, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM (D. Ariz.), Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted Antonio Pascale's Motion to Substitute Plaintiff. A. Pascale is the son of named Plaintiff Mark Pascale (the "Decedent"), who recently passed away. A. Pascale is the Court-appointed personal representative of the Decedent's estate and asks the Court to substitute him for the Decedent as a named Plaintiff in the suit. In September 2017, the Decedent was charged with marijuana possession. The prosecutor in the Decedent's case offered that if he consented to participate in the Marijuana Deferred Prosecution Program ("MDPP") for 90 days and completed all program requirements, criminal proceedings would be suspended. The Decedent agreed to the prosecutor's offer and entered MDPP on Nov. 17, 2017. After 90 days in MDPP, the Decedent had complied with all program requirements except for the payment of required program fees. As a result, his required participation in the program was extended pending payment. The Decedent was required to pay for drug and alcohol testing three times per week while he remained enrolled in MDPP. He satisfied all payments and finally graduated from MDPP on June 9, 2018, almost seven months after he first enrolled in the program. On Sept. 5, 2018, the court dismissed all criminal charges against him. On Aug. 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint with the Court alleging multiple causes of action under Section 1983 for wealth-based discrimination in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and unreasonable search and seizure in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case is now proceeding on the second amended complaint, filed by the Plaintiffs on Sept. 23, 2019. They are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, damages for pain and suffering, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On Oct. 27, 2019, the Decedent unexpectedly died of causes unrelated to the present suit. A. Pascale, his son, was subsequently appointed as the personal representative of the Decedent for probate purposes. On Nov. 7, 2019, the surviving Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the Decedent's death. On Jan. 28, 2020, TASC filed a Notice of Death with the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 25(a)(1). A. Pascale filed his Motion for Substitution on April 27, 2020. The Defendants filed their responses in opposition to the motion on May 11, 2020. A. Pascale filed his reply on May 18, 2020. A. Pascale argues that the Court should grant his Motion for Substitution because: (1) the motion is timely filed; (2) he is the proper party for substitution; and (3) the Decedent's constitutional claims and claims for damages survive his death and pass to his personal representative. The Defendants oppose the Motion for Substitution arguing that: (1) under Arizona law, a decedent's Section 1983 claim alleging violation of his or her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure does not survive the decedent's death; and (2) Arizona law precludes a decedent's personal representative from recovering the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering damages where the decedent's death was not causally related to the defendant's challenged conduct. Judge Markovich finds that A. Pascale's Motion for Substitution should be granted because the Decedent's substantive claims and claim for damages have not been extinguished by Arizona's survival statute. A. Pascale is pursuing a Section 1983 claim against the Defendants for violation of the Decedent's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Because Arizona's survival statute allows the survival of most causes of action after a decedent plaintiff's death, because the Decedent's tort claim is not included among those enumerated in the survival statute as necessarily extinguished upon his death, and because the Court has specifically held that Fourth Amendment causes of action survive, the Judge finds that Decedent's claim survives his death. Although the Defendants argue that the Court's decision in Fernandez v. Virgillo, requires that the Court finds the Decedent's claim to be extinguished, the Court in Erickson v. Camarillo rejected Fernandez for its failure to consider the inconsistency between A.R.S. Section 14-3110 and the underlying policy goals of Section 1983. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the state survival statute is not controlling and the Court will allow A. Pascale to pursue the Decedent's Fourth Amendment cause of action as the Decedent's personal representative. And, although Arizona's survival statute explicitly precludes a substituted plaintiff from recovering a decedent's pre-death damages for pain and suffering, the Judge finds that, pursuant to Erickson and the other decisions, to apply A.R.S. Section 14-3110 to deny recovery in the case would be inconsistent with the twin policy goals of compensation and deterrence underlying Section 1983. Further, the Arizona survival statute is inconsistent with Section 1983 regardless of whether the Defendants' actions precipitated Decedent's death or not. Therefore, the Judge finds that A.R.S. Section 14-3110 does not extinguish the Decedent's damages claim for pre-death pain and suffering, and the Judge will grant A. Pascale's Motion for Substitution. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Markovich granted A. Pascale's Motion to Substitute. A. Pascale, in his role as the personal representative of Mark Pascale's estate, is substituted for the Decedent Plaintiff. The case caption of the action be amended to replace "MARK PASCALE" with "ANTONIO PASCALE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Pascale." A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/3lmNMQc from Leagle.com. MARRIOTT INT'L: Servers File Class Action Over Unpaid Gratuities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Reilly, writing for WKBW-TV, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court naming Marriott International, Inc and NFNY Hotel Management LLC as defendants. NFNY Hotel Management operates the Sheraton Niagara Falls hotel on Third Street in the Cataract City. The lawsuit alleges that the Sheraton Niagara Falls routinely added a service charge of 1% to 3% onto food and beverage bills, but the money was not paid to servers. The out-of-state attorneys, who filed the lawsuit, said in their court filing that customers thought the "hidden" service charge was a gratuity for the servers. However, the lawsuit claims those service charges were not paid to servers, beverage servers, banquet servers, in-room dining servers, or other employees doing similar jobs during a period between 2012 and September 2019. Servers claim the hotel did not pay them their gratuities The court filing claims more than 100 current and former employees will be part of the class-action lawsuit with more than $5 million in dispute. In an email from Sheraton Niagara Falls legal counsel, Stephen Sharkey, the attorney said Marriott and NFNY dispute the claims and "intend to zealously defend against the claims asserted against them in the lawsuit." The attorney said the case was just recently transferred to the Western District as a result of a motion that was filed (The lawsuit was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York). Sharkey also said, "we have already succeeded in obtaining plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of four of the seven claims that have been asserted against Marriott and NFNY in the action." The lawsuit was originally filed with U.S. Federal Court in early April. [GN] MAXIM INTEGRATED: Continues to Defend ADI Merger Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend several suits including two putative securities class suit, related to its merger with Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI). On August 17, 2020, Analog Devices, Inc. ("ADI") filed a registration statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-248092) (as amended, the "Form S-4") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with ADI's proposed acquisition of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (the "Company" or "Maxim") pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 12, 2020 (as it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among ADI, Magneto Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ADI ("Acquisition Sub") and the Company. On September 4, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its definitive joint proxy statement on Schedule 14A relating to the special meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on October 8, 2020 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") to, among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. Since the initial filing of the Form S-4, six complaints (collectively, the "Maxim Stockholder Complaints"), including two putative securities class action lawsuits, have been filed in federal courts in California, Delaware and New York by purported Maxim stockholders against Maxim and the members of the Maxim board of directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement: Shiva Stein v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05830 (N.D. Cal., filed August 18, 2020); Joseph Post v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-mc-09999 (D. Del., filed August 24, 2020) (the “Post Action”); Waseem Khan v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03982 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 26, 2020); Joseph Burns v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-07168 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 2, 2020); John Husselman v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07525 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 14, 2020); and Joseph Schaffer v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06816 (N.D.Cal., filed September 30, 2020). The Post Action also names ADI and Acquisition Sub as defendants. In addition, one complaint, Coe Living Trust v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11682 (D. Mass., filed September 11, 2020), has been filed by a purported ADI shareholder in federal court in Massachusetts against ADI and the members of the ADI board of directors and one derivative lawsuit has been filed against the members of the ADI board of directors in state court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass. Sup. Ct., Norfolk Cnty., Case No. 20-0864, filed September 11, 2020). Each of the Federal Stockholder Complaints alleges, among other things, that the Form S-4 omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The ADI State Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against ADI's directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the directors fraudulently concealed information based on allegations that the Form S-4 misrepresents or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs in the Federal Stockholder Complaints and the ADI State Action, among other things, seek to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (and in two cases, to enjoin the shareholder vote) or, in the alternative, rescission of the merger or rescissionary damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets linear and mixed-signal integrated circuits. The Company offers switching regulators, battery management, amplifiers, data converters, filters, opticals, and memory products. Maxim Integrated Products serves customers globally. The company is based in San Jose, California. MB DOWNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHIRLEY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. MB DOWNEY RESTAURANTS, LLC; DENNY'S, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV37178 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act, including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other employees mandated minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants also failed to timely pay the employees, to provide required meal and rest periods or provide premiums in lieu thereof, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and to timely pay wages following termination or resignation of employment, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt server in California from approximately 2014 through December 2019. MB Downey Restaurants, LLC, is a company that owns and operates restaurants in California. Denny's Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Petronelli, Esq. Dayna C. Carter, Esq. PETRONELLI LAW GROUP, PC 295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (888) 855-3670 Facsimile: (888) 449-9675 E-mail: christian@petronellilaw.com dayna@petronellilaw.com MDL 2972: Allen Seeks Transfer of 8 Blackbaud Breach Suits to S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Allen v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02930 (D.S.C.), seeks approval from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on September 18, 2020, to transfer related actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under MDL No. 2972, IN RE: Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions include: -- Mamie Estes et al. v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-08275 (C.D. Cal); -- Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-08356 (C.D. Cal.); -- Arthur et al v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-14319 (S.D. Fla.); -- Graifman v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07600 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Zielinski v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07714 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Allen v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02930 (D.S.C.); -- Johnson v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03181 (D.S.C.); and -- Martin v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03286 (D.S.C.). The briefing schedule in the motion to transfer is set as follows: -- Responses are due on or before October 13, 2020; and -- Reply, if any, is due on or before October 20, 2020. Blackbaud, Inc. is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community including nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. Its products focus on fundraising, website management, CRM, analytics, financial management, ticketing, and education administration.[BN] MILLENIAL SOLUTIONS: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIDNEY NAIMAN and ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MILLENIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a GLOBAL BUSINESS LENDING, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-at-00938 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant contacted them on their cellular telephone numbers by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in an attempt to solicit them to purchase its services despite not obtaining their "prior express consent to receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephones. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were harmed by the Defendant's unsolicited calls that include causing them to incur certain charges, as well as invading their privacy. Millenial Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Global Business Lending, offers loan to small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 91367 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MOUNTAIRE CORP: Ordered to Pay Cuppels' Counsel $28,000 Sanction ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION, an Arkansas corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, C. A. No. S18C-06-009 CAK (Del. Super.), Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of the Superior Court of Delaware ordered the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs' counsel $28,320.25 without delay. Plaintiffs Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels, in their individual capacity and on behalf of similarly-situated individuals, filed the lawsuit in June 2018 against Defendants Mountaire Corp. ("MC"), Mountaire Farms, Inc., and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. related to the operation of a chicken processing facility in Sussex County, Delaware. The Defendants separately moved to dismiss the Complaint in July 2018. Two weeks later, on Oct. 26, 2018, they moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On Feb. 22, 2019, the Court entered an order with respect to the Motions to Dismiss, in which it concluded that limited discovery should be allowed for the limited purpose of (a) determining whether the Plaintiffs can maintain the action as a class action and (b) deciding whether MC has sufficient contact with Delaware to permit the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The Feb. 22 Order further provided that the parties may conduct discovery, limited to (i) the elements of class certification as outlined by Rule 23(b), and (ii) MC's contacts with Delaware. On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs propounded a set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions directed to the Defendants. On April 10, 2019, the Defendants served their Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Two days later, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Court, in which the counsel represented that the parties' positions on the scope of discovery are polarized and the Court's intervention is necessary. The Court held an office conference on April 30, 2019, and one day later, the parties sought clarification of the Feb. 22 Order. On May 14, 2019, the Court appointed David A. White, Esquire as Special Discovery Master. Two weeks later, the Court provided further clarity regarding the scope of the Defendants' discovery obligations, in which it authorized the Plaintiffs to seek discovery limited to theories of specific jurisdiction under 10 DEL. C. Section 3104(c), civil conspiracy, and agency. On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to compel the Defendants' supplemental response to the Jurisdictional Discovery Requests. Briefing on the Jurisdictional Motion to Compel concluded, and the Special Master issued a thirty-seven page letter decision and opinion granting the Plaintiffs' request for relief in part. The Special Master granted similar relief with respect to the Jurisdictional Discovery Request for Production Directed to MFODI. The Defendants took exception to the June 2019 Decision, which the Court denied in large part. The Court described the June 2019 Decision as "robust" and "comprehensive." Other than a limitation imposed on Defendants' obligation to respond to a single interrogatory, the Court adopted the June 2019 Decision in toto. Following the issuance of the August 2019 Order, the Court stayed the action to provide the parties with an opportunity to pursue mediation. The parties' efforts to mediate ultimately failed and the stay expired. While the Defendants' subsequent efforts to comply with the Jurisdiction Discovery Order are unclear, as of the Court's Office Conference on Dec. 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs insisted that the Defendants had not satisfied their obligations. In January 2020, the Defendants supplemented their response to the Jurisdictional Discovery Requests. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs complained of 'extensive redactions' undertaken by the Defendants in their document production and requested a privilege log for all withheld documents and an appropriately detailed redaction log. The Defendants responded to the Plaintiffs' complaints. On April 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs formally sought to compel the Defendants' production of unredacted copies of the documents identified on the Redaction Logs. That same day, the Plaintiffs sought the entry of an order compelling the production of unredacted copies of minutes from the Defendants' meeting of shareholders and board of directors, respectively. The Redaction Motion to Compel and the Meeting Minutes Motion to Compel presented an area of overlap concerning the Defendants' decision to redact portions of meeting minutes. The Defendants redacted the meeting minutes on the basis of responsiveness, in which they interpreted the June 2019 Order to permit the redaction of those sentences, paragraphs, or pages from meeting minutes that did not touch on the aforementioned subjects. The Special Master issued a letter decision and opinion concerning the Redaction Motion to Compel and the Meeting Minutes Motion to Compel on April 30, 2019. The April 30 Decision compelled the Defendants to produce unredacted copies of numerous documents, including meeting minutes. The Special Master rejected the Defendants' efforts to redact portions of responsive documents, in which the April 30 Decision cited to four cases from the district courts sitting in the Third Circuit in the previous four-year period which were adverse to the Defendants' redaction position. Further, the Special Master characterized the Defendants' interpretation of the June 2019 Decision as incorrect and without a basis of support, in which he found that the June 2019 Decision excused the Defendants from having to produce any meeting minutes, i.e., documents, which did not include information relevant to the subject areas. To the extent that any portion of the minutes from any meeting discussed one of the subject areas listed in the June 2019 Decision, the document is responsive and it should be produced in its entirety (subject to the proper assertion of privilege). Finally, the Special Master rejected the Defendants' confidentiality concerns based on the confidentiality order negotiated by the parties approximately one year prior to the April 30 Decision, in which the confidentiality order included strict provisions limiting the Plaintiffs' use of discovery materials. The Defendants did not take an exception to the April 30 Decision. Pursuant to it, they produced unredacted meeting minutes among other documents. The Plaintiffs' review of the unredacted documents prompted the filing of the Second Sanctions Motion. The Court is asked to examine if one party has gone beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Judge Karsnitz addressed the Plaintiffs' first motion several weeks ago and denied it in an oral ruling. In that ruling, the Judge expressed deep concern about the Defendants' tactics and conduct. While he believed at that time Defendants' conduct supported sanctions, the Judge exercised his discretion and gave them another chance. Among other things, in reviewing the first motion, the Judge was flabbergasted that the Defendants had filed a motion to compel responses to Rule 302 interrogatory answers almost two years after they had been filed. The Judge has also at, he believes, every conference, hearing or argument he has conducted to date, warned the parties of the lack of civility which permeated the case. It is the Defendants' third strike. The Judge has tried to control the litigation not only through discovery rulings, but also by importuning all parties to act civilly, to operate within Court rules and to take positions supportable by precedent. In his opinion, the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show both violation of rulings the Court or the Special Master White have made, and the Defendants wrongfully refused to disclose the contents of documents which are obviously relevant. The documents inappropriately redacted bear directly upon one of the many contested issues: whether the Court has jurisdiction of the Defendant MC. The battle over jurisdiction has lasted almost two years, and, of course, significantly delayed the case. While the old saw "justice delayed is justice denied" can only be taken so far, the Judge gives it more than due consideration. The Judge's urging to civility has fallen on deaf ears and he is entering an order sanctioning all the Defendants. Both case law and common sense dictate that before sanctioning a party, the Judge must determine a violation of a court order occurred. The violation cannot be merely technical, but must be a failure to obey the court in a meaningful way. Courts have authorized the sanction of dismissal or default judgment for discovery violations. In a least one case, the Court has recognized the sanctions of deeming personal jurisdiction to be admitted. Five separate orders required the Defendants to produce the documents requested. In the Judge's view, the only way to move the case fairly and to demonstrate his commitment to civility and appropriate conduct is to order sanctions against the Defendants. Judge Karsnitz will implement the least severe sanctions appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case. The Plaintiffs provide him three alternatives -- finding liability against all the Defendants, deferring as a sanction that MC is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, and money sanctions. The Judge is left with the sanction of imposing fees and costs on the Defendants as a sanction. The Plaintiffs have requested fees in the amount of $33,753 which were incurred as a result of the fight over documents in the larger jurisdictional fight. They also requested that he assesses against the Defendants the sum of $10,320.25 which represents their share of billings from Mr. White for work he did addressing the document issues. The Judge has reviewed Mr. White's billings. What Mr. White has billed is fair and reasonable, and was billed for time spent addressing the document issues. The Judge assesses it against all the Defendants. Imposing attorney's fees always has an element of arbitrariness. The Plaintiffs ask for $33,750. The Judge has no doubt the amount requested represents a reasonable value of the professional service and effort the Plaintiffs expended in responding to the document issues. However, the Judge is exercising his discretion in awarding the lesser amount of $18,000. Judge Karsnitz contemplated assessing the sanctions only against MC. The Judge is not, but rather is entering an order which holds all the Defendants responsible, jointly and severally, for the money sanctions. The Judge does so because all the Defendants are represented by the same counsel and their strategy has been joint. In his view, they should be jointly responsible. The Judge takes the actions he outlines with great hesitation. The Defendants are represented by competent, professional counsel. The Judge does not know where the breakdown in civility and tactics occurred, and it matters not. The Judge hopes that he will not again in the case be presented with issues of sanctions for inappropriate conduct. Accordingly, Judge Karsnitz orders the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs' counsel without delay $28,320.25, which represents $18,000 in fees and $10,320.25 in costs. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/34vKFys from Leagle.com. Chase T. Brockstedt, Esquire -- chase@bmbde.com -- Stephen A. Spence, Esquire, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, 1413 Savannah Road, Ste. 1, Lewes, Delaware 19958, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Philip C. Federico, Esquire, Brent Ceryes, Esquire, Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A., 1211 Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. F. Michael Parkowski, Esquire -- mparkowski@pgslegal.com -- Michael W. Teichman, Esquire, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., 1105 North Market Street, 19th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys for Defendants. Lisa C. McLaughlin, Esquire -- lcm@pgmhlaw.com -- Todd L. Goodman, Esquire, John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., 1200 North Broom Street, Wilmington, DE 19806, Attorneys for Defendants. James R. Wedeking, Esquire -- JWEDEKING@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005, Attorney for Defendants. NANO-X IMAGING: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities during the period from August 21, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nano-X System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nano-X System was not original; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar Tel No: 310-692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN] NEW ORLEANS, LA: Court Dismisses Mestayer Suit Over ATES Ordinance ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JACQUES MESTAYER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, SECTION: "E" (3), Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-14432 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(b)(1), and 9(b). The action is brought by Plaintiffs Mestayer and Theodore Wong, who paid fines and penalties as mandated by notices of traffic violations issued on behalf of the City of New Orleans Photo Safety Program, after Nov. 4, 2010. On Feb. 22, 2007, the City Council enacted the Automated Traffic Enforcement System Ordinance ("ATES Ordinance"), codified in Chapter 154 of the Code of the City of New Orleans, Sections 154-2, and 154-1701-1704. On Nov. 20, 2017, Plaintiff Mestayer received in the mail a Notice of Violation alleging a violation of driving in excess of the speed limit on Nov. 9, 2017. He requested an Administrative Adjudication Hearing before the City, which was held on May 15, 2018. A Notice of Determination was rendered by the City denying his appeal and demanding payment in the amount of $110. Mestayer appealed the decision and, by judgment dated Aug. 20, 2018, the Municipal and Traffic Court for the City of New Orleans court found Mestayer liable for the violation as set forth in the Notice of Violation. Mestayer appealed the judgment to the First City Court for the Parish of Orleans and, by judgment dated May 7, 2019, that court reversed the Aug. 20, 2018 judgment. Because the City did not appeal, the First City Court's judgment became final on May 7, 2019. Plaintiff Wong received two Notices of Violations, dated April 9, 2014 and Aug. 29, 2018, which he paid and did not contest. On Dec. 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in federal court, bringing causes of action under the federal mail and wire fraud criminal statutes, as well as Louisiana state laws prohibiting fraud and unjust enrichment. In their complaint, they expressly allege the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. On Feb. 21, 2020, the City filed its first Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing the Court lacked diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the CAFA. On Feb. 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that, because they alleged the City violated the federal mail and wire fraud criminal statutes, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. During a telephone status conference on April 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court the Plaintiffs concede the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter under the CAFA or federal question jurisdiction based on violations of the federal mail and wire fraud criminal statutes. On April 17, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Reasons denying the City's first Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. On April 30, 2020, the City filed its second Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because their Complaint on its face does not identify a constitutional violation. The City alternatively argues that, to the extent the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint could be read to allege a constitutional violation, it does not clearly state whether the Plaintiffs allege a procedural due process claim or substantive due process claim. The City next argues the Plaintiffs' claim for relief under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because those federal criminal statutes do not provide a private right of action. Finally, the City argues the Plaintiffs' state law claims should be dismissed because, upon dismissal of their federal claims in their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs will have stated no viable federal claim against the City and with no federal question remaining, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, and dismiss the Plaintiffs' state law claims. Judge Morgan holds that the Fifth Circuit has clearly held there is no private right of action under the federal mail fraud statute. Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has clearly held there is no private right of action under the federal wire fraud statute. Because the federal mail and wire fraud statutes do not operate to create a private cause of action for damages against the Defendants who have allegedly violated the statutes, the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the federal mail and fraud statutes is granted. With respect to the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims, in the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, they assert they bring both a procedural due process claim as well as a substantive due process claim. Interestingly, in their sur-reply, the Plaintiffs address only their procedural due process claim. To the extent their Second Amended Complaint may be construed as alleging both a procedural due process claim and a substantive due process claim, both claims fail to meet the pleading requirements under Twombly and, as a result, both claims are dismissed. The Plaintiffs have also failed to set forth facts that, taken as true, would establish a procedural due process violation. The only remaining issue is whether they should be granted leave to amend the allegations supporting their procedural due process claim. The Plaintiffs already have been given an opportunity to amend their complaint to add allegations regarding their Section 1983 claims, and have established no reason why they should be accorded a second opportunity. The Judge finds that allowing the Plaintiffs to replead their procedural due process claim would be futile. It is clear to her that adequate procedural due process protections already are in place. The Plaintiffs are not granted leave to amend and the City's motion to dismiss their procedural due process claim is granted. In considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it is appropriate for the Court to consider judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. Further, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3) states that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Such is the case in the matter, as all federal law claims have been dismissed at an early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Judge grants the City's motion and dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' state law unjust enrichment and fraud claims. In light of the foregoing, Judge Morgan granted the City's Motion to Dismiss. The Judge dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' federal mail and wire fraud claims and procedural and substantive due process claims under Section 1983 against the City. The Judge dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' state law unjust enrichment and fraud claims against the City. The City's request for oral argument on the motion to dismiss is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://bit.ly/2GAYmEh from Leagle.com. NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Nov. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of investors that purchased Nikola Corporation ( NKLA) securities between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg Report"). The Hindenburg Report suggested that the firm had gathered extensive evidence on false statements made by Nikola's founder Trevor Milton, including that Milton misrepresented, the Company's battery and fuel cell technology and the size of the Company's order book. Moreover, the Hindenburg Report claimed that Milton used these Misrepresentations to substantially grow the Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies. On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%, to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020. The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. If you purchased Nikola securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Nov. 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") ( NKLA, NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. ( VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Nikola between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nikola investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (ii) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (iii) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (iv) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (v) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (vi) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (vii) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (viii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Nikola during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 16, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Nov. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-04354, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Nikola securities between June 4, 2020, and September 9, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Nikola securities during the class period, you have until November 16, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Nikola purports to operate as an integrated zero-emissions transportation systems provider. The Company purports to design and manufacture battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The Company also purports to develop electric vehicle solutions for military and outdoor recreational applications. Nikola was founded in 2015 by Defendant Trevor Milton ("Milton"), and in June 2020, the Company's securities began trading publicly after the execution of a reverse merger with VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Milton had repeatedly misrepresented and/or exaggerated Nikola's financial, technological, and operational profile; (ii) the foregoing misrepresentations were intended to, and did, present a materially false image of the Company's growth and success, thereby artificially inflating the Company's stock price; (iii) the foregoing misrepresentations were foreseeably likely to subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement, along with reputational harm when the truth came to light; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg Report" or the "Report"). Asserting that it had gathered "extensive evidence-including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes photographs," Hindenburg represented that it had identified "dozens of false statements by" Milton, which had led Hindenburg to conclude that Nikola "is an intricate fraud built on dozen of lies over the course of . . . Milton's career." Defendant Milton made these misrepresentations, the Report asserted, to substantially grow the Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies. On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.33%, to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020. Then, on September 14, 2020, after the market had closed, Bloomberg reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating Nikola to assess the merits of the Hindenburg Report. Finally, on September 15, 2020, during intra-day trading, the Wall Street Journal reported that the United States Department of Justice had joined the SEC's investigation of Nikola. On this news, Nikola's stock fell an additional $0.17 per share during intra-day trading, to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020, an 8.27% decline from its previous close on September 14, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Tel No: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Gross Law Announces Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA) Investors Affected : March 3, 2020 - September 15, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its “in-house” design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading “test” video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=9419&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:NKLA) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 4, 2020 and September 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 16, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton, materially misrepresented the Company's technology and business. The Company's profitability and business prospects were massively overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Nikola, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Nguyen Appeals Ruling in CLRA Suit to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Huu Nguyen filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-05591-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. When Plaintiff Nguyen purchased a new 2012 Nissan 370Z as a college graduation present for his son, he was unaware of what he alleges was a potentially catastrophic design defect hidden in the vehicle's hydraulic clutch system. After the clutch purportedly malfunctioned--and the Plaintiff spent more than $700 replacing it--he filed a putative class action against Defendant Nissan, asserting causes of action under state and federal warranty laws. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged five causes of action against Nissan: (1) violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (4) breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (5) unjust enrichment. The district court granted in part Nissan's motion to dismiss, removing the Plaintiff's UCL and unjust enrichment claims, and his request for injunctive relief under the CLRA. The Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (or, in the alternative, under Rule 23(c)(4) for liability only), seeking to certify (1) a class of all individuals in California who purchased or leased, from an authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle equipped with a FS6R31A manual transmission; and (2) a CLRA subclass of all members of the Class who are 'consumers' within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 1761(d). Although Nissan opposed class certification for various reasons--including that the Plaintiff was not an adequate class representative, that individual issues predominated due to the varying types of automobiles included in the Class Vehicles, and that Nissan's purported knowledge of the defect changed over the course of the class period--major point of dispute, and the issue on which the district court's eventual order hinged, concerned the Plaintiff's damages model. According to the Plaintiff, his "damages model is based on the economic principle of benefit-of-the-bargain and is consistent with [his] theory of liability." Assuming that the class members would have either paid less than sticker price or not purchased a defective vehicle at all had the nature of the clutch system been divulged by Nissan, the Plaintiff seeks "to recover the difference in value between the non-defective vehicles Nissan promised and the defective vehicles that were delivered based on the cost to replace the composite CSC with one that is solid cast-aluminum." Nissan challenges this proposed damages model, citing the report of an expert who, in its words, rejected the notion that average-cost-of-repair represented the amount that informed consumers would discount the price of the Class Vehicles. The district court agreed with Nissan and denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. It concluded that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), based on what the court viewed as a "problematic" damages model. The appellate case is captioned as Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 20-80138, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner HUU NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by: John Ely Stobart, Esq. Ryan Wu, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: john.stobart@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com Defendant-Respondent NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, is represented by: Matthew J. Adler, Esq. Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 E-mail: matthew.adler@faegredrinker.com paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com - and - Edwin Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq. Sherman Vance Wittie, Esq. FAEGRE, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, L.L.P. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 357-2500 E-mail: paul.cauley@faegredrinker.com vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com - and - Adam J. Thurston, Esq. Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-4000 E-mail: adam.thurston@faegredrinker.com zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT) Investors Affected : December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally administered chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii) consequently, tesetaxel’s commercial viability as a cancer treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/odonate-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9419&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. ("Odonate" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ODT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-01828, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Odonate securities between December 7, 2017, and August 21, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Odonate securities during the class period, you have until November 16, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Odonate was founded in 2013 and is based in San Diego, California. Odonate is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The Company is focused on developing tesetaxel, an orally administered chemotherapy agent. Tesetaxel is in Phase 3 clinical study for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer ("MBC"), called the CONTESSA trial, which is evaluating tesetaxel in combination with capecitabine in patients with MBC. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) tesetaxel was not as safe or well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii) consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 24, 2020, during pre-market hours, Odonate issued a press release announcing top-line results from the CONTESSA trial. Although the study met its primary endpoint, tesetaxel plus capecitabine was associated with Grade 3 or higher neutropenia (low levels of white blood cells), which occurred in 71.2% of patients with the combination treatment versus 8.3% for capecitabine alone. Various other Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events ("AEs") were also associated with tesetaxel plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone. Further, discontinuation rates were 4.2% from neutropenia and 3.6% from neuropathy, and the overall discontinuation rate was 23.1% in the treatment group compared to 11.9% in the capecitabine alone group. On this news, Odonate's stock price fell $15.21 per share, or 45.35%, to close at $18.33 per share on August 24, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] OHIO STATE: Court Lifts Seal in Amended Garrett & Snyder-Hill Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, BRIAN GARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-692, No. 2:18-cv-736 (S.D. Ohio), Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, directed the Clerk of Court to file the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in Case No. 2:18-cv-692, and the Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 2:18-cv-736 on the public record. In accordance with the Court's Order issued on May 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs in both of the cases filed Amended Complaints on May 27, 2020 under seal. The Defendant filed a Response on June 10, 2020, stating that it had reviewed both Complaints for confidentiality concerns as directed. The Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs responded to the Defendant's confidentiality concerns on June 12, 2020. The Defendant indicates that it does not believe the pleading in Garrett contains confidential information. Magistrate Judge Deavers agrees. Accordingly, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint will be filed on the public record without redaction. With respect to the Snyder-Hill pleading, the Defendant identifies three paragraphs -- 237, 238, and 247 -- that it believes are arguably protected from disclosure by Ohio Rev. Code Section 4731.22.(F)(5). In considering whether information ought to be sealed, the Sixth Circuit's decision in Shane Group requires a district court to balance, among other things, the nature of the public's interest in the litigation's subject matter; whether the information sought to be sealed is required by statute to be maintained in confidence; and the privacy interests of innocent third parties. The Magistrate Judge concludes that despite Ohio's strong statutory confidentiality provision, the public interest requires that the Second Amended Complaint be filed on the public record in its entirety without redaction. Secrecy may have been fine at earlier stages of the case, but different considerations apply at the adjudication stage. The line between these stages is crossed once information is placed on the Court record. As noted, the public has significant interest in not only the outcome but in the conduct giving rise to the case. Undoubtedly, the allegations are of the type where the secrecy concerns noted in Shane Group are particularly heightened. These concerns strongly outweigh the Defendant's suggestion that these three paragraphs may require protection from public disclosure. For the reasons stated, the Magistrate Judge lifted the seal and directed the Clerk to file the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint on the public record in their entirety. The responsive pleadings and replies will be filed within rule thereafter. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/34woCaV from Leagle.com. OKONITE COMPANY: Parrish Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as WALTER PARRISH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated and the State of California v. THE OKONITE COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20CV02753, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09000 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of California Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay wages at termination, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Okonite Company, Inc., is an American manufacturer of insulated wire and cable, with its principal place of business located in Ramsey, New Jersey.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rachael Lavi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: rlavi@littler.com - and – Lyndsey M. Marcelino, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1300 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 630-1000 E-mail: lmarcelino@littler.com OTELCO INC: Defends Plumley Putative Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Otelco Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 5, 2020, that the company is defending against a putative stockholder class action lawsuit entitled, Patrick Plumley v. Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA On July 27, 2020, Otelco Inc. filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by Future Fiber FinCo, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 26, 2020 (as may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Parent and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation of the Merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. On August 20, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A, and on September 9, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, in each case relating to the special meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on October 9, 2020 to, among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. On September 1, 2020, a purported stockholder of Otelco filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Patrick Plumley v. Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of all public stockholders of Otelco against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors (the "PLUMLEY Action"). Thereafter, on September 21, 2020, another purported stockholder of Otelco filed a separate individual lawsuit, captioned Jacob Scheiner IRA v. Otelco Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-07756-AJN, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Actions generally allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement or the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the members of the Company's Board of Directors are liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The relief sought in the Actions includes a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the completion of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is completed, costs and attorneys' fees. While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, to resolve the alleged stockholders’ claims and moot the disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential expense, and delay and to provide additional information to Otelco stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosures set forth herein or in the Definitive Proxy Statement. To the contrary, the Company denies all allegations that any additional disclosure was, or is, required. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3iMolWF. Otelco Inc. operates 11 rural local exchange carriers (RLECs) serving subscribers in north central Alabama, central and southern Maine, western Massachusetts, central Missouri, western Vermont, and southern West Virginia. The Oneonta, Alabama-based Company is the sole wireline telephone services provides for three of the rural communities it serves. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Morlok Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Morlok, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled William Morlok, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, Case No. 2-17-cv-04213, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying and maintaining the case as a class action on behalf of the following class: "all persons who applied for and were granted a reserved and designated electric vehicle parking space within the City of Philadelphia pursuant to Philadelphia City Ordinance Section 12-1131, before it was amended effective April 20, 2017." The lawsuit arises out of the City's wrongful conduct with respect to the retroactive elimination of the Plaintiffs' designated and exclusively reserved electric vehicle parking places. The appellate case is captioned as William Morlok, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, Case No. 20-2973, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM MORLOK, ADAM NOVICK, and THEODORE LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by: Stephan Matanovic, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD 2000 Market Street, 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 660-7600 - and - Sean Whalen, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (484) 416-3207 Defendant-Appellee CITY OF PHILADELPHIA is represented by: Eleanor N. Ewing, Esq. Benjamin H. Field, Esq. Amy M. Kirby, Esq. City of Philadelphia 1515 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 683-5012 E-mail: Eleanor.Ewing@phila.gov Benjamin.Field@phila.gov Amy.Kirby@phila.gov PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Yaroni Sues Over 92% Drop in IPO Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- ALLON YARONI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINTEC TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, WEI WEI, STEVEN YUAN NING SIM, JUN DONG, JING ZHOU, XIAOMEI PENG, CHAO ZHOU, FENG HONG, JIACHENG LIU, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08062 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and misleading Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Pintec Technology's October 2018 initial public offering (IPO). Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Pintec erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material weaknesses in Pintec's internal control over financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal 2017 and 2018 had been misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about Pintec's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged about Pintec's financial condition, Pintec stock declined to as low as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $11.88 per share IPO price. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Pintec's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, according to the complaint. Pintec Technology Holdings Limited is an operator of an online lending platform with its principal executive offices located in Beijing, China. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. is a wealth management company based in New York, New York. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a company that offers investment advisory services based in New York City. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a company that provides banking and financial services based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and – Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and – Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 PNC FINANCIAL: Settlement in Rossini Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEPHEN ROSSINI and MATTHEW KANE, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1370 (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for final approval of the parties' class-action settlement agreement, and for approval of the Plaintiffs' counsel's requested award of attorneys' fees and costs. The case is a class-action lawsuit alleging that Defendants PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that PNC violated the FCRA and CHRIA by failing to comply with certain statutory disclosure and notice requirements during its hiring and background check processes. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. GD-18-011610, on Sept. 6, 2018. Plaintiffs generally allege that PNC violated the FCRA and CHRIA by obtaining job applicants' criminal history reports or drug test results and, in some cases, rescinding job offers based on those reports. With respect to their FCRA claims, the Plaintiffs contend that PNC's actions violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2), which they refer to as the "Stand-Alone Disclosure" requirement, and 15 U.S.C. Section 1682b(b)(3), which they refer to as the "Pre-Adverse Action Disclosure" requirement. PNC disputes the Plaintiffs' contentions on several grounds. In its answer, PNC asserts that it is not liable because, according to PNC: (1) the criminal history reports obtained on the purported class members do not constitute "consumer reports" under the FCRA (and thus the FCRA does not apply); (2) the Plaintiffs' claims are not subject to class certification; (3) PNC's disclosure forms complied with the law; (4) PNC's pre-adverse action procedures complied with the law, and; (5) PNC did not act "willfully." The parties attended mediation with Rodney Max in April 2019. By May, they reached a settlement-in-principle to resolve the complaint. The parties' settlement agreement provides members of four proposed settlement classes the opportunity to receive payments from a $626,960 settlement fund as follows: a. FCRA "Rescinded" Settlement Class: The proposed FCRA "Rescinded" class includes all individuals who applied for employment with PNC during the relevant time period and received offers of employment that PNC then rescinded based on the applicants' criminal history reports or drug test results. The proposed settlement would allocate $189,760 to members of the class, which will be paid automatically, by check, on a pro rata basis to all class members who do not opt out. The parties believe that there are 1733 individuals in the class who will each receive a payment of at least $109.49. b. FCRA "Decisional" Settlement Class: The proposed FCRA "Decisional" class includes all individuals who applied for employment with PNC during the relevant time period whose criminal history reports were coded "Decisional" by First Advantage, but whose job offers PNC did not rescind as a result. The proposed settlement allocates $217,200 to members of the class, which will be paid automatically, by check, on a pro rata basis to all class members who do not opt out. The parties believe that there are 3742 individuals in the class, who will each receive a payment of at least $58.04. c. FCRA "Claims Made" Settlement Class: The proposed FCRA "Claims Made" class is divided into two sub-groups. The FCRA "Disclosure" sub-group consists of all individuals who applied for employment with PNC during the relevant time period and received an FCRA authorization and disclosure form only in PNC's online employment application. The FCRA "Drug Test" sub-group consists of all individuals who applied for employment with PNC and "had a drug test that was initially marked anything other than 'Negative' or 'Negative Dilute,' but who did not have an offer of employment rescinded. The proposed settlement allocates $170,000 to members of this class, which will be paid on a pro rata basis to all class members who (1) do not opt out and (2) timely submit a claim form. The parties believe that there are 23,450 individuals in the class, who will each receive at least $7.25. d. The CHRIA Settlement Class: The proposed class includes all individuals residing in Pennsylvania who applied for employment with PNC during the relevant period and received offers of employment that PNC then rescinded based on a criminal history report that did not reflect a conviction, such as reports reflecting arrests, dropped charges, or pretrial diversion. The proposed settlement allocates $30,000 to members of the class, which will be paid on a pro rata basis to all class members who (1) do not opt out and also (2) timely submit a claim form. The parties believe that there are 394 individuals in the class, who will each receive a payment of at least $76.14. PNC agreed to pay $10,000 to each of the two named Plaintiffs as an incentive award. It agreed to pay all notice and administration expenses. The designated settlement administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., is responsible for (1) providing notice to class members by U.S. Mail; (2) establishing and maintaining the internet website containing information about the settlement; (3) establishing and staffing a toll-free telephone number to answer questions from settlement class members; (4) handling opt-out requests from members of all settlement classes; (5) handling claims submitted by members of the FCRA "Disclosure" and CHRIA settlement classes; and (6) making payments to settlement class members. PNC agreed to not oppose the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs, not to exceed $300,000. Both parties agreed that the payment of attorneys' fees would not diminish the fund available to class members, and that the settlement would not depend on the Court's approval of any fee award. The Court conditionally certified the proposed settlement classes, granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and approved the proposed notice to class members on Jan. 9, 2019. On Nov. 8, 2019, the settlement administrator mailed the notice required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 to the United States Attorney General, the regional and national offices of the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. On Feb. 10, 2020, the settlement administrator mailed 29,318 copies of the notice and claims forms approved by the Court to all settlement class members. Only 696 settlement class members -- approximately 2% of the total class -- did not receive notice. On the same day, initial notice was mailed, Feb. 10, 2020, the settlement administrator also launched a website, informationreportingsettlement.com, where information and documents relevant to the settlement can be accessed. The Plaintiffs filed unopposed motions seeking final approval of the parties' settlement agreement and approval of attorneys' fees and costs in April 2020. They also filed declarations regarding the completion of class notice, and in support of their motions for settlement approval. The Court held a final fairness hearing. No class member objected to the settlement either before, during, or after the fairness hearing. Judge Ranjan certified the proposed settlement classes, and granted the Plaintiffs' motions. Specifically, the Judge finds that the settlement classes satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), that the parties' settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that the requested award of attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable based on a percentage-of-recovery analysis. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/2FeTuEo from Leagle.com. ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jeganathan Retaliation Suit in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC JEGANATHAN v. ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED; RAMJI KRISHNAN; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. MID-L-006667-20 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other individuals similarly situated arising from the Defendants' violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act due to illegal retaliatory discharge. According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff on May 22, 2020, after he engaged in CEPA protected-conduct. The CEPA protected-conduct emerged when Mr. Jeganathan brought up issues related to employees' unsafe working conditions, including the dangerous workstation that was lower than the neighboring standing desk, the Company's receipt of warehouse and laboratory equipment despite the lack of certificate of building occupancy and lack of elevator certification, the presence of oily film on some of the refrigerators and freezers, the installation of forklift stations without appropriate ventilation, and the lack of forklift training to the Defendant's director of engineering. The Defendant then terminated the Plaintiff's employment, claiming that numerous colleagues had complained about his behavior. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff's termination was not for "Cause," but instead was in retaliation for his CEPA-protected activity, the Defendants' Human Resources Director, Stacey Verdino, sent the Plaintiff an email and an invoice demanding sign-on bonus repayment of $30,000 by July 21, 2020, causing him further financial harm, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a director of supply chains from June 24, 2019, until his unlawful termination on May 22, 2020. Rocket Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is a Middlesex County, New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Silverman, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Faces Ingram Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- BYRON INRAM and STEVEN DUNLAP, individually and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees v. ROCORE KNOXVILLE, LLC, ROCORE THERMAL SYSTEMS, LLC and KELVION INC. a/k/a KELVION COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00423 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid employees. The Plaintiffs allege that although they were required to perform job duties, as well as not fully relieved of their job duties during their 30 minutes meal periods, the Defendants have been automatically deducting 30 minutes meal period during each of their work shift. As a result, the Defendants denied them of overtime compensations at one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40. Additionally, the Defendants have employed a "rounding" policy/practice, whereby the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were cheated of 15 minutes increments of overtime pay throughout workweeks in the statutory period. The Defendants manufacture engine driven and remote mounted radiators for stationary engines.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com ROSANN LANDSCAPE: Contreras Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Jose Barragan Contreras, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Judgment dated August 18, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Barragan Contreras v. Rosann Landscape Corp., Case No. 17-cv-6453, in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York (White Plains). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges violations of the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and minimum wage and overtime provisions of New York Labor Law. The lawsuit seeks redress for unjust enrichment, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest as well as declaratory relief. The appellate case is captioned as Barragan Contreras v. Rosann Landscape Corp., Case No. 20-3229, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Jose Barragan Contreras, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives; Juan Alonzo Orellana, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives; and Jorge Yepez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives, are represented by: David A. Tykulsker, Esq. DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES 161 Walnut Street Montclair, NJ 07042 Telephone: (973) 509-9292 Email: david@dtesq.com Defendants-Appellees Rosann Landscape Corp., Ana Maria Birlescu, and A.F.A. Management Corp. are represented by: Jeffrey Michael Bernbach, Esq. BERNBACH LAW FIRM PLLC 245 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 428-9100 E-mail: bernbachlawfirm@verizon.net ROSETTA STONE: Curtis Suit Challenges $792-Mil. Sale to Cambium --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROSETTA STONE INC., JOHN HASS, LAURENCE FRANKLIN, PATRICK W. GROSS, AEDHMAR HYNES, GEORGE A. LOGUE, DAVID NIERENBERG, KATE EBERLE WALKER, JESSIE WOOLLEY-WILSON, STEVEN P. YANKOVICH, CAMBIUM HOLDING CORP., and EMPOWER MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01288-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 24, 2020), challenges the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger and acquisition of Rosetta Stone by Cambium Holding and Empower Merger Sub. The Plaintiff owns Rosetta Stone common stock. On August 29, 2020, the Board of Directors of Rosetta Stone caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan merger with Cambium Holding Corp. and Empower Merger Sub Inc. in an all cash transaction for $30 per share, representing an equity value of approximately $792 million. The Board of Directors of Rosetta Stone unanimously approved the transaction with one director not participating due to a potential interest in the transaction. According to the complaint, the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by the Defendants with the U.S. SEC on September 15, 2020 in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material information, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose the Company's financial projections, the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in connection with the Proposed Transaction, and whether the Company entered into any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions, which are important to the shareholders in deciding whether to tender their shares in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Rosetta Stone, Inc. provides technology-based learning solutions. John Hass is Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, while the rest of the individual Defendants are directors of the Company. Cambium Learning Group provides digital education solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 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 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Fax: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com SMITHTOWN NISSAN: McFadden Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA MCFADDEN, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. SMITHTOWN NISSAN INC., JOSEPH RUBIO, and JOE URSO, Case No. 2:20-cv-04661 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the federal and state laws. She also seeks to recover from the Defendants for discrimination on the basis of pregnancy that constituted a retaliatory termination, including back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an internet sales coordinator from June 2017 until her termination on June 12, 2019. Smithtown Nissan Inc. is a Nissan car dealer based in St. James, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 SPERIAN ENERGY: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Corsale Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN CORSALE; DAVID TAYLOR, Individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. SPERIAN ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 19-3567 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting Sperian's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Corsale and Taylor brought the putative class action alleging that Sperian breached its electricity supply contracts by setting retail prices that did not track prices in the local wholesale market. When Pennsylvania deregulated its electricity markets in the 1990s, a number of electric generation suppliers ("EGSs") entered the market. EGSs act as middlemen, buying electricity from generators and selling it to consumers. Policymakers hoped that EGSs would use innovative purchasing strategies -- such as buying electricity in advance -- to compete with local utility monopolies on retail prices. Angling for lower prices, the Plaintiffs contracted with Sperian, an EGS based in Texas. But they allege that their anticipated savings never materialized: Sperian's variable rate electricity prices were consistently -- and often substantially -- higher than those charged by the Plaintiffs' local utility companies. When the Plaintiffs first contracted with Sperian, they agreed to Sperian's Initial Terms and Conditions. The Initial Terms provided for a three-month teaser period during which Sperian charged a low, fixed monthly rate. The Plaintiffs were free to cancel at any time after these three months; but, if they chose not to, then after the teaser period ended, they would be automatically enrolled in a variable rate plan. The Initial Terms included the provision describing the variable rate plan. Prior to the end of the three-month teaser period, Sperian sent the Plaintiffs the Updated Terms and Conditions governing their post-teaser period services. The Plaintiffs did not cancel at the end of the teaser period, so they were automatically enrolled in the variable rate plan. The Updated Terms included the variabe product provision. Under the variable rate plan, the Plaintiffs consistently paid higher prices than those charged by their local utility companies. Disgruntled, the Plaintiffs sued Sperian for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Sperian filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and, rather than contest the motion, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added an alleged violation of a state consumer protection law but did not meaningfully alter the breach of contract claim. Sperian filed another motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and the District Court granted it. The District Court held that the Updated Terms constituted the operative contract, but, regardless, neither the Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms included language that imposed a duty on Sperian to set its prices based on local wholesale market prices. The District Court dismissed the breach of contract claim with prejudice, concluding that allowing the Plaintiffs to amend the claim would be futile. The Plaintiffs argue that Sperian's contracts obligated it to base its variable rate on market conditions and fluctuations, including local wholesale electricity prices and that Sperian breached this duty by failing to do so. At the very least, the Plaintiffs assert that the contract language is ambiguous, and so their claim should not be decided on a motion to dismiss. Theys also argue that the District Court should not have dismissed their claim with prejudice because they never had an opportunity to amend based on the District Court's holding that the Updated Terms constitute the operative contract. Sperian responds that the Updated Terms expressly state that prices "may change" in response to market fluctuations and conditions at the discretion of Sperian -- language which does not impose a duty on Sperian to set its prices based on local wholesale prices. Sperian also asserts that the District Court properly dismissed the breach of contact claim with prejudice because the Plaintiffs did not ask for leave to amend and the District Court reasonably concluded that amendment would be futile. Judge Chagares agrees with the District Court that neither the Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms imposed a duty on Sperian to set its prices based on local wholesale prices. Both the Initial Terms and the Updated Terms include permissive, rather than mandatory, language regarding price setting. Both the Initial Terms and the Updated Terms provide that Sperian's prices may be higher or lower than the local utility company's prices in any given month. And the Updated Terms provide that prices may change in response to market conditions "at Sperian's discretion." This language does not obligate Sperian to base its prices on prices in the local wholesale market, and therefore, its failure to do so cannot constitute a breach of contract. Finally, in ordinary civil litigation, a district court may enter final judgment after granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the plaintiff has not properly requested leave to amend its complaint. The Plaintiffs did not properly request leave to amend, and so the District Court did not abuse its discretion in not granting leave to amend sua sponte. Furthermore, because neither the Initial Terms nor the Updated Terms imposed a duty on Sperian to set retail prices based on local wholesale prices, allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert the same breach of contract claim based on the Updated Terms would be futile. For these reasons, Judge Chagares affirmed the District Court's judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/34qEN9y from Leagle.com. SQUEAKY KLEAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vargas Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SQUEAKY KLEAN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00224-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Sept. 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff. Squeaky Klean Services, Inc., owned and operated a cleaning service in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com STARBUCKS CORP: Phayakapong Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN PHAYAKAPONG, individually and on behalf of the general public and all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01161061-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' marketing of gift cards in a deceptive and illegal manner in violation of the California Code of Civil Procedure and the California Business & Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants had engaged in unlawful practices of marketing, selling, and issuing Starbucks Gift Cards by forcing its customers, like the Plaintiffs, to either forfeit their shop card balances or spend more money than they would otherwise spend, thus, unfairly increasing Starbucks' revenues at their customers' expense. The Plaintiff contends that the conduct of the Defendants constitutes a flagrant violation of the law that was intended and designed to protect consumers from the very practice that the Defendants had been engaged in and continue to engage in. Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington. As the world's largest coffeehouse chain, Starbucks is seen to be the main representation of the United States' second wave of coffee culture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Arielle M. Canepa, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com STARR RESTAURANT: Weiss Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as GREGORY WEISS, on behalf of himself and the Class v. STARR RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION, LP d/b/a STARR RESTAURANTS, BUDDAKAN NY, L.P. d/b/a BUDDAKAN, HAVATEQUILA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a EL VEZ, ERY NORTH TOWER RHC TENANT LLC d/b/a ELECTRIC LEMON, DR. HOWARD DR. FINE, LLC a.k.a. HOWARD FINE LLC d/b/a LA MERCERIE, MOE LARRY CHEESE, LLC d/b/a LE COUCOU, MORIMOTO NY VENTURE, L.P. d/b/a MORIMOTO, TRAIN DESIGN, LLC d/b/a PASTIS, SUR ORGANIZATION, LLC d/b/a THE CLOCKTOWER, 26TH STREET RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a UPLAND, SRHG WEST, LLC d/b/a VERONIKA, STEPHEN STARR, ALLAN DOMB, DAVID ROBKIN, and JENNIFER ROBKIN, Case No. 156909/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-08090 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees minimum wages due to an invalid tip credit deduction, overtime pay due to time-shaving, and spread-of-hours premium. Starr Restaurant Organization, LP, d/b/a Starr Restaurants, is a company that operates a restaurant based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Buddakan NY, L.P., d/b/a Buddakan, is a company that operates an Asian fusion restaurant based in New York City. Havatequila Restaurant Partners, LLC, d/b/a El Vez, is a company that operates a restaurant based in New York City. Ery North Tower RHC Tenant LLC, d/b/a Electric Lemon, is a company that operates an American restaurant based in New York City. Dr. Howard Dr. Fine, LLC a.k.a. Howard Fine LLC, d/b/a LA Mercerie, is a company that operates a French restaurant based in New York City. Moe Larry Cheese, LLC, d/b/a LE Coucou, is a company that operates a Modern European restaurant based in New York City. Morimoto NY Venture, L.P., d/b/a Morimoto, is a company that operates a Japanese restaurant, with its main office located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Train Design, LLC, d/b/a Pastis, is a company that operates a French restaurant based in New York City. Sur Organization, LLC, d/b/a The Clocktower, is a company that operates an American restaurant based in New York City. 26th Street Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Upland, is a company that operates a restaurant based in New York City. SRHG West, LLC, d/b/a Veronika, is a company that operates a Swedish restaurant based in New York City.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9600 STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2020, for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has taken the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit under submission. On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by the company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's active client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuits (the "Class Action") filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, we and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the company and the other defendants filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019. The court has taken the motion under submission. "We believe these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters, blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UNITED STATES: Amended K.O. Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, K.O., et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-309 (RC) (D. D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, and denied leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are minor non-United States citizen children who, after arriving in the United States either at or between designated ports of entry, were forcibly separated from their parents by the Department of Homeland Security or one of its sub-agencies, Customs & Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or U.S. Customs & Immigration Services. The case arrived before the Columbia District Court upon transfer from the District of Massachusetts. In that court, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and their First Amended Complaint, asserting Constitutional and related statutory claims against a number of individual federal officials, including the former Attorney General, the now-former Secretary of DHS, the now-former White House Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor to the President. The Plaintiffs asserted eight counts against the individual Defendants, all of which remain in the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint added one new Count, bringing the total to nine against the individual Defendants: violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful and unreasonable seizure (Count I - newly added in the First Amended Complaint), violation of substantive due process rights to family integrity (Count II), violation of procedural due process (Count III), violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection (Count IV), violation of substantive due process rights relating to the punishment of civil detainees (Count V), violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in connection with coerced waiver of asylum and other immigration claims (Count VI), violation of substantive due process rights in connection with the failure to provide adequate mental health services (Count VII), conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) (Count VIII), and refusal or neglect to prevent or aide in preventing conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1986 (Count IX). The individual Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. While that motion was pending, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. They proposed to add the United States as a Defendant and to add eight counts against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The individual Defendants opposed that, as did the United States, which appeared specially for the limited purpose of opposing the motion. Judge Hillman of the District of Massachusetts granted the individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Judge Hillman transferred the case to the Columbia District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631. Judge Hillman did not address the individual Defendants' additional arguments that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he explicitly left the Motion to Amend open for this Court to resolve. The Columbia Court has received supplemental briefing from the Plaintiffs, from the individual Defendants, and from the United States. The individual Defendants maintain that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs' motion to file a Second Amended Complaint adding claims against the United States is opposed by both the individual Defendants and by the United States, which is still not a party. In addition to these pending motions, the individual Defendants have filed a Notice of Related Case, which the Court also addresses. The Plaintiffs argue that the individual Defendants' arguments in favor of dismissal for failure to state a claim are no longer ripe for decision because Judge Hillman already ruled on that motion. It is contrary to the parties' agreement with the Court in their teleconference that the remaining arguments on the Motion would be addressed in the parties supplemental briefing. The Court suspects the Plaintiffs did not forget that, as they devoted two dozen pages to the merits of these arguments in their supplemental briefing. The Plaintiffs' claims against the individual Defendants are the type of claims for damages against federal agents and officials acting under color of federal authority that the Supreme Court first authorized under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that federal agents acting under color of federal authority who commit an unconstitutional search or seizure could be held liable as individuals for money damages, and Carlson v. Green, the Supreme Court extended the Bivens cause of action to allow for damage claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Judge Contreras holds that two special factors primarily give the Court "reason to pause" in the case: first, the fact that Bivens is not properly used as a means of challenging general government policies, and second, the fact that Congress has legislated extensively in this area without providing of this kind of suit. Additionally, the fact that national security concerns are likely implicated and that alternatives forms of relief appear to be available give the Court further pause. For these reasons, the Judge declines to extend Bivens into the new context, and will grant the motion to dismiss as to Counts I through VII. Two claims in the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint do not rely on Bivens, but are instead statutory: Count VIII, which alleges a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) and Count IX, which alleges refusal or neglect to provide or aide in preventing a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1986. The individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on these statutory claims. Judge Contreras holds that while the Plaintiffs have attempted to distinguish the cases cited by the Defendants -- including Abassi and the state and local government cases -- they present no cases to establish affirmatively that liability for the Defendants' alleged conduct is clearly established. Simply distinguishing the Defendants' cases, even if done effectively, would not carry the Plaintiffs' burden. The legal conclusions necessary to find in the Plaintiffs' favor "cannot be clearly established" and thus the Defendants would not have known with any certainty that the alleged agreements were forbidden by law. The individual Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1985(3) claim, and so the Section 1986 claim necessarily fails along with it. Finally, Judge Contreras finds that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint makes identical Bivens and statutory conspiracy claims against the individual Defendants. Amending these claims would be futile because the proposed amendments change nothing about them and they would not survive a motion to dismiss for the reasons explained. It would leave only for the Court's consideration the proposed tort claims against the United States. Under these circumstances, the Judge sees no reason to allow amendment. Judicial economy would be better served by the filing of a new action. Because the claims against the individual Defendants fail to state a claim, there is nothing to be gained in terms of judicial efficiency by litigating the claims against the United States in the action. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Contreras granted the individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; and found to be moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave from Compliance with the Service Requirements in Local Rule 15.1 of the District of Massachusetts. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/33EohE2 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Cacciapalle Class Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH CACCIAPALLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-466C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs in the case challenge the actions of the United States during the conservatorships of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Specifically, the Plaintiffs take issue with the conservator for Fannie and Freddie amending a funding agreement between the Enterprises and the United States Department of the Treasury. Based on the revisions to that agreement, the Plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted; damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty; and compensation for two types of takings claims pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are two categories of the Plaintiffs in the litigation brought as a class action. One putative class of the Plaintiffs consists of holders of Fannie preferred stock, except the United States, and the other putative class is composed of holders of Freddie preferred stock, except the United States. The class members purchased their stock before the Net Worth Sweep. The Class members may hold stock in just one of the Enterprises, or both. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 10, 2013. After jurisdictional discovery proceeded in Fairholme, a related case, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action complaint in the case on March 8, 2018. In their amended complaint, they plead six direct claims brought in their individual capacities as shareholders. The Plaintiffs first assert that the Net Worth Sweep constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking of their economic interests in their stock (count I). Next, they assert a different takings claim based on any judicial interpretation of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ("HERA") that precludes them from recovering just compensation for their property interest in certain causes of action, including derivative claims on behalf of the Enterprises (count II). The Plaintiffs further assert that the Net Worth Sweep constitutes an illegal exaction (count III) of their economic interests in their stock because (1) the Federal Housing Finance Agency as the conservator ("FHFA-C") was operating against its statutory mandate to preserve the Enterprises' assets; (2) the FHFA-C repudiated the Enterprises' contractual obligations to their shareholders outside of the permissible statutory time-frame; and (3) Treasury entered into the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement ("PSPA") Amendments after the statutory time frame for entering into such contracts had expired. The Plaintiffs also plead two breach-of-contract claims. In the first, they allege that their stock certificates bind the Enterprises in contract, and that these contracts were breached by the FHFA-C when it entered into the PSPA Amendments, depriving plaintiffs of the benefits of those contracts (count IV). In the second breach-of-contract claim, founded again on the Plaintiffs' stock certificates, they allege that the FHFA-C breached the Enterprises' implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing vis-a-vis the Plaintiffs (count V). Lastly, they allege that the FHFA-C, as a conservator pursuant to HERA, owes a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is premised on the Net Worth Sweep being unfair; constituting waste, self-dealing, gross overreach, and gross abuse of discretion; and failing to further a valid business purpose or reflect a good faith business judgment (count VI). On Oct. 1, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss -- in a single, omnibus motion -- the claims in the case and 11 related cases before the Court. The plaintiffs in each of the 12 cases filed a response brief on their respective dockets; some of them relied on a joint brief, while others, as is the case, filed a joint brief and a supplemental response brief. The Defendant filed its omnibus reply brief in each of the cases on May 6, 2019. The parties have fully briefed the Defendant's motion, and the Court held a single oral argument on Nov. 19, 2019, involving the plaintiffs from each of the 12 cases that the Defendant moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs in those cases collaborated during argument; each plaintiff argued some of the issues. Thus, the Court infers that the Plaintiffs in the instant case have adopted the favorable arguments made by the plaintiffs in the related cases to the extent that such arguments are relevant. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims, and the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Sweeney finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs' judicial takings claim and their fiduciary duty claim. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their contract claims due to the absence of privity with the United States, and lack standing to bring their nominally direct takings, illegal-exaction, and fiduciary duty claims because the nature of these claims is derivative, not direct. Judge Sweeney therefore granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in the consolidated case accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/3d5jjTC from Leagle.com. Hamish P.M. Hume -- hhume@bsfllp.com -- Washington, DC, and Eric L. Zagar -- ezagar@ktmc.co -- Radnor, PA, for plaintiffs. Kenneth M. Dintzer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. UNITED STATES: Prestige Sues Over Unlawful Denial of EIDL Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION INC., SUPERIOR OVERNIGHT SERVICES INC., AMERILOGISTICS GROUP INC., AND STAM PROPERTIES LLC, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JOVITA CARRANZA AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SBA, STEVEN MNUCHIN AS THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, AND DOES 1 TO 5, Case No. 2:20-cv-08963 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), arises from the unlawful and ultra vires policies, practices, and rules implemented by the Defendants to carry out the directive of the CARES Act's Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loans program to eligible businesses. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES" Act). Of particular relevance to small businesses, like the Plaintiffs, the CARES Act created two new temporary loan programs, the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and the Emergency EIDL. The Emergency EIDL program is a separately codified newly created program temporarily expanding the class of eligible entities to which the SBA is authorized and directed to make EIDL loans under Section 7(b)(2) of the SBA Act. According to the complaint, as a direct and proximate cause of COVID-19, the related executive orders, and the economic downturn, Plaintiffs PTI, SOS, AGI, and STAM have suffered significant business losses. The Plaintiffs applied for an EIDL Emergency loan in order to mitigate financial losses and stabilize their businesses in the face of restrictions on imports and the reduction of available cargo for transportation. However, the Small Business Administration's categorical 'immigration status' and 'no amendment' policies have resulted in the Plaintiffs' ineligibility for EIDL loans that the Plaintiffs should have qualified for under the plain text of the CARES Act. As a direct result of SBA's implementation of the said policies, the Plaintiffs and their employees have suffered severe economic injuries and risk financial ruin. Absent a court order, the Plaintiffs will remain unable to obtain the EIDL loans Congress provided for in the CARES Act, the suit says. Prestige Transportation Inc. transports cargo throughout the continental United States as part of interstate commerce on behalf of its partners, customers, brokers, shippers, and manufacturers. Superior Overnight Services Inc. offers logistics services, including Business–to–Business (B2B), Business–to–Customer (B2C), Dock-to-Dock, and Dock-to-Door (lift gate, inside deliveries) transportation. Amerilogistics Group Inc. operates as a private carrier for hire based on non-exclusive leased trip contracts with motor carriers, who offer less than truckload services. STAM Properties LLC is a four-member owned and managed for profit limited liability company, which owns and rents several apartment units in Whitehall, New York, to low income households.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicolette Glazer Esq. Larry R Glazer Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER 1999 Avenue of the Stars, #1100 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 407-5353 Facsimile: (310) 407-5354 E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com larry@glazerandglazer.com UNITED STATES: TRO/Class Certification Motions in Gomez Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01419(APM) (D. D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Plaintiffs' (i) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and (ii) Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs in the action are United States citizens and lawful permanent residents whose children and grandchildren ("beneficiaries") were, at the time the litigation commenced, all "minors" -- meaning unmarried children under the age of 21 -- seeking immigrant visas to enter the country. Each beneficiary has since turned or will turn 21 years old in June 2020. Two have received their visas since the Plaintiffs filed the action, and the Plaintiffs concede that their individual claims relating to those beneficiaries' applications are now moot. As for the third beneficiary, W.Z.A., the Plaintiffs fear that if he does not receive his visa and enter the country before his birthday on June 30, he will "age out" of his minor visa preference category. What prompted the Plaintiffs' filing of the suit is Presidential Proclamation 10014, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak/ Presidential Proclamation 10014 halts processing of certain categories of immigrant visas, including the beneficiary-based visas at issue in the case. The Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order preventing the Defendants from enforcing Proclamation 10014 against minor visa applicants who will turn 21 years old during the Proclamation's effective period. The minor visa applicants are sponsored by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated United States citizen and lawful permanent resident parents. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court certify a class of visa sponsors whose beneficiaries or derivative beneficiaries are subject to the Proclamation and will also age out while the Proclamation remains in effect. On May 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against the Defendants President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, the United States Department of State, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf. They filed the instant motions for a temporary restraining order and class certification on June 2, 2020. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Proclamation by categorically applying it to 20-year-old visa applicants who are otherwise eligible for visas, and for whom visas are immediately available, but who will age out of their eligibility before the Proclamation expires. They seek to certify the following class: All individual immigrant sponsors with approved immigrant visa petitions for a child, including for derivative child relatives in applicable preference categories, with a current priority date while Presidential Proclamation 10014 is in effect; and whose sponsored child or sponsored derivative child relative is subject to the Proclamation and will, as a result of the Proclamation, age out of his or her current visa preference category by turning 21 years old while the Proclamation remains in effect. The briefing concluded on June 18, 2020, and the Court held a hearing on the motions the same day. Judge Mehta does not reach the merits of the Plaintiffs' temporary restraining order and class certification motions because they have not shown at this stage in the proceedings that they have standing nor that their claims are ripe and not moot. The record evidence before the Court suggests that the Defendants' enforcement of the Proclamation has, at most, funneled the Plaintiffs' beneficiaries' applications into a different administrative channel that carries no greater burdens or risks of denials, at least as to potential age-outs. The Plaintiffs have not shown beyond mere speculation that their beneficiaries' consideration under the national interest exception will imminently cause them harm. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that disputes about future events where the possibility of harm to any given individual is remote and speculative are properly left to the policymaking Branches, not the Article III courts. Consequently, the Judge cannot conclude on this record that the Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of standing under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment. As the Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument, Plaintiffs Mirna S.' and Gomez's claims are now moot because their beneficiaries, M.T.S. and Alondra, have received their visas and immigrated to the United States. The Judge therefore can provide no additional remedy for these Plaintiffs. Likewise, Plaintiff Vicenta S.' claims are unripe because her grandson W.Z.A.'s visa application is proceeding and appears likely to be granted under the Second Proclamation. While the Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' concern that they will have little time to seek judicial relief before W.Z.A. ages out if his visa application is denied, the risk that W.Z.A. will be denied is only hypothetical and speculative at this point. Should the feared denial come to pass, the Court is prepared to expeditiously revisit its decision. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied because the Plaintiffs have not shown that they had standing at the outset, and because their claims have become moot or remain unripe since the litigation commenced. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the case while W.Z.A.'s visa application proceeds. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that they are nevertheless entitled to class certification because two exceptions to the doctrine of mootness apply to Mirna S.'s and Gomez's claims. Under the first exception, if a named plaintiff's claim is inherently transitory, and becomes moot prior to certification, a motion for certification may 'relate back' to the filing of the complaint. The second exception, which has not been considered by the D.C. Circuit, applies when a defendant picks off named plaintiffs in a class action before the class is certified by strategically mooting named plaintiffs' claims in an attempt to avoid a class action. The Judge need not decide whether either exception applies in the case, however, because both exceptions simply operate to relate the motion for class certification back to the filing of the complaint -- the exceptions cannot salvage a suit that was never justiciable to begin with. The relation back doctrine therefore cannot "salvage" the Plaintiffs' claims. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mehta denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The parties was directed to provide the Court with a joint status report, updating the Court on the status of W.Z.A.'s visa application. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/3lmyvyU from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Daleiden Appeals Decision in Doe Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant David Daleiden filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jane Does 1-10, et al. v. University of Washington, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01212-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge James L. Robert of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Feb. 9, 2016, Defendant David Daleiden sent a written request to Defendant UW under Washington State's Public Records Act ("PRA") to inspect or obtain copies of all documents that relate to the purchase, transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues, human fetal organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the [UW] Birth Defects Research Laboratory from 2010 to present. On Feb. 10, 2016, Defendant Zachary Freeman issued a similar PRA request to UW. Among other documents, these PRA requests sought communications between UW or its Birth Defects Research Laboratory, on the one hand, and Cedar River Clinics, Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, or certain individuals or employees of Cedar River and Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, on the other hand. Mr. Daleiden's PRA request specifically lists the names of eight such individuals. On July 21, 2016, UW notified Doe Plaintiffs that absent a court order issued by Aug. 4, 2016, UW would provide documents responsive to Mr. Daleiden's PRA request without redaction at 12:00 p.m. on Aug. 5, 2016. On July 26, 2016, UW issued a similar notice to Doe Plaintiffs regarding Mr. Freeman's request and indicated that, absent a court order, UW would provide responsive documents without redaction on Aug. 10, 2016. On Aug. 3, 2016, Doe Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a putative class seeking to enjoin UW from issuing unredacted documents in response to the PRA requests. They object to disclosure of the requested documents in unredacted form because the documents include personally identifying information such as direct work phone numbers, work emails, personal cell phone numbers, and other information. On the same day that they filed suit, Doe Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking both a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction against disclosure of the requested documents. The appellate case is captioned as Jane Does 1-10, et al. v. University of Washington, et al., Case No. 20-80137, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; and JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jill D. Bowman, Esq. Sarah Julia Littell, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 E-mail: jill.bowman@stoel.com julia.littell@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com vanessa.power@stoel.com - and - Steven Walter Fogg, Esq. Maia Robbins, Esq. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE, LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 274-8669 E-mail: sfogg@corrcronin.com mrobbins@corrcronin.com Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public corporation; and PERRY TAPPER, Public Records Compliance Officer at the University of Washington, in his official capacity, are represented by: Nancy Sagor Garland, Esq. AGWA-OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEATTLE) UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA 98195-9475 E-mail: nancysg@uw.edu - and - John Robert Nicholson, Esq. FREIMUND JACKSON & TARDIF, PLLC 701 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 582-6001 E-mail: johnn@fjtlaw.com Defendant-Appellant DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual, is represented by: Peter Breen, Esq. Thomas Brejcha, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 19 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-1680 E-mail: pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org - and - William John Crittenden, Esq. GROFF MURPHY, PLLC 12345 Lake City Way NE 306 Seattle, WA 98125 Telephone: (206) 361-5972 E-mail: wjcrittenden@groffmurphy.com - and - Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND P.O. Box 9520 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: (858) 759-9948 E-mail: jtrissell@limandri.com UNUM LIFE: Vasquez ERISA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as JAVIER VAZQUEZ, and all others similarly situated v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2020L009359, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-05799 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Plaintiff's declaration of his rights under the terms of an employee welfare benefit plan, with long term disability benefits funded by a Group Insurance Policy issued by the Defendant and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Group Policy is void. Unum Life Insurance Company of America is a company that provides supplemental insurance coverage in the workplace based in Portland, Maine.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jacqueline J. Herring, Esq. SMITH VON SCHLEICHER + ASSOCIATES 180 North LaSalle St., Suite 3130 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 541-0300 Facsimile: (312) 541-0933 E-mail: jackie.herring@svs-law.com VARIAN MEDICAL: Agreement Reached in Siemens Merger Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 5, 2020, that an agreement has been reached in the suits including class actions related to the company's merger with Siemens Healthineers Holding I GmbH. On August 2, 2020, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Siemens Healthineers Holding I GmbH, a company organized under the laws of Germany ("Parent"), Falcon Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), and, with respect to certain provisions, Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Guarantor"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Varian, with Varian surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. In connection with the Merger Agreement, on September 14, 2020, Varian filed a definitive proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, as of September 11, 2020, three lawsuits, including two purported class action lawsuits, have been filed by purported Varian stockholders in connection with the Merger. On August 31, 2020, a purported Varian stockholder filed a lawsuit against Varian and the members of Varian's board of directors alleging that the Proxy Statement contained alleged material misstatements and/or omissions in violation of federal law. The lawsuit is captioned Stein v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Case 3:20-cv-6140 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 3, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants by purported Varian stockholders asserting similar claims: Kent v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Case 1:20-cv-1178, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and Zimmer v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Case 4:20-cv-6266, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints generally allege that the Proxy Statement filed by Varian in connection with the Merger fails to disclose allegedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections of Varian, and (ii) certain financial analyses of Varian's financial advisor. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin Varian from consummating the Merger, or in the alternative, rescission of the Merger and/or compensatory damages. While Varian believes that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable laws, to reduce the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, on October 5, 2020, Varian reached an agreement to resolve the Actions in exchange for voluntarily making certain disclosures that supplement and revise those contained in the Proxy Statement. Plaintiffs in the Actions have agreed that, following the filing of this 8-K, they will dismiss the Actions in their entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice to all other members of the putative class. Varian denies that any of the defendants have committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the supplemental disclosures set forth herein. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3iEzc4T. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, sells, and services medical equipment. The Company offers radiotherapy, radiosurgery, X-ray tube technology, digital image detectors, cargo screening, and non-destructive testing equipment. Varian Medical Systems serves the healthcare sector globally. The company is based in Palo Alto, California. VILLA CHARITIES: Faces $35MM COVID-19 Negligence Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Sue-Ann Levy, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that Domenica Gusciglio says she learned from officials of Villa Colombo Vaughan on her anniversary on March 18 that her 86-year-old mom "wasn't doing well." Mom Anna Sforza, who suffered from dementia, passed away 11 days later never having been tested by the facility for COVID-19, or having been taken to hospital, according to Gusciglio. Gusciglio is the representative plaintiff in a $35-million class-action suit against Villa Charities, Villa Colombo Homes for the Aged in North York, Universalcare Canada Inc. and Villa Colombo Seniors Centre in Vaughan where her mom was a five-year resident. The lawsuit - brought on behalf of 47 residents who suffered from COVID, 50 who died and up to 500 family members - alleges that the defendants were "negligent and deficient" in the care of Storza and other residents, which contributed to their demise. It claims that the Villa Colombo homes failed to "follow acceptable practices" to prevent and contain COVID-19, that they didn't adequately plan for the pandemic and didn't have adequate staff, that they didn't communicate with families of residents and that they failed to comply with public health directives around resident isolation and testing, use of PPE and employee testing. Anthony DiCaita, president and CEO of Villa Charities Inc., provided a terse response through the public relations firm, Maverick: "We have been served, the matter is now before the courts and at this time we have no comment," he said. Gusciglio claimed when she was permitted to go in on March 18, she tried to put "cold compresses" on her mom the entire night to try to break a high fever. She alleged she returned for three more nights until the home's officials told her she couldn't come anymore. When she came on March 22 with her husband, she claims both were "thrown out." "They said she was getting better," she alleged. On March 19 -- after the province-wide lockdown had been put in place -- she said she noticed the party room had been set up with a balloon with "100" on it -- for a 100th birthday party -- a billboard and tables from another room. When she asked the coordinator about the party, she claimed she was told "they were making an exception" for the 100th birthday. She also alleged she was told the birthday girl would be put in one corner of the room and the family in another. "What do you say?" she asked. A few days later, she was called and told her mom had "taken a turn for the worse" and she was permitted back in, claimed Gusciglio. When she went in, she claimed she learned that management had told staffers to take off their masks and a lot of other "crazy things that were going on." She said they never sent Sforza to the hospital. She was allegedly informed none of the staff and residents were tested for COVID-19 even though she learned there were a "lot of sick people." "Then they would be branded if they have COVID," she said. Lawyer Jillian Siskind, who has filed the lawsuit in partnership with Diamond & Diamond lawyers, said other plaintiffs have allegedly indicated families were never told about any cases of COVID-19 in the facilities until "well into April." Gusciglio said she was particularly upset with a photo opportunity by Ontario cabinet minister Steven Lecce, the MPP for King-Vaughan, taken in May in front of Villa Colombo, just weeks after the deaths occurred. "It was really a kick to my gut," Gusciglio said. "Why aren't they taking pictures with all the dead people they let down?" [GN] WELLSTAR HEALTH: Cole Sues Over Facility Fees Charged to Patients ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Georgia corporation, and WELLSTAR NORTH FULTON HOSPITAL, INC., a Georgia corporation, and John Doe 1-2, Case No. 2020CV340612 (Ga. Super., Fulton Cty., Sept. 18, 2020), challenges the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practice of charging patients visiting a Wellstar emergency room a substantial undisclosed facility fee. According to the complaint, the facility fee is not only being billed in addition to the charges for the individual items of treatment and services provided the patient, but is also effectively hidden and concealed from the patient. The knowledge of this undisclosed facility fee is essential to the patients, including the Plaintiff, as it would be a substantial factor in an emergency care patient's decision to remain at the hospital and proceed with a medical evaluation and stabilizing treatment. The Plaintiff is a resident of Georgia, who was treated at Webstar North Fulton Hospital in Fulton Country, and who was billed a surprise facility fee by Webstar as a result of being seen in hospital's emergency room. Webstar Health System, Inc. and Wellstar North Fulton Hospital, Inc. are healthcare services provider based in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. THE ANTONINO FIRM LLC 8325 Dunwoody Place Northridge 400 Bldg 2 (Rosner Law Group) Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Telephone: (770) 408-1229 Facsimile: (470) 875-0194 E-mail: lauren@antoninofirm.com - and - Barry Kramer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER 9550 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 252 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 778-6090 E-mail: kramerlaw@aol.com WEST PENN: Faces Class Action Over Secret Recordings ---------------------------------------------------- Rick Earle, writing for WPXI-TV, reports that two women filed a class action lawsuit against West Penn Hospital alleging they were secretly recorded while undressing in a hospital exam room. "This suit seeks damages for their humiliation, their exposure and their exploitation at the hands of a West Penn Hospital employee," attorney Michael Zagari said. Zagari represents a 25-year-old woman, who he said went to the hospital for a cancer procedure. "Her trust in medicine has been shattered at a time when her trust in medicine is vital. It's extremely important. These are women that are battling cancer. They have a cancer scare -- that's why they are there. That's why they're putting trust in the hospital and I can tell you she feels betrayed," Zagari said. After a worker discovered a small video camera in a bathroom, police charged former hospital employee Guy Caley in July with invasion of privacy. Eighty-three more charges were filed against him earlier this month. He's accused of videotaping co-workers in a bathroom and patients in an exam room. "Unbeknownst to these women, prior to Mr. Caley stepping out of that examination room, or that imaging room, Mr. Caley had set up cameras inside the imaging room to record them getting undressed," Zagari said. Attorney Rob Peirce, who's working with Zagari and attorney Joe Charleton, said Caley allegedly videotape 21 employees and at least 34 patients. The lawsuit, however, only involves the patients who were recorded. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as changes. Peirce contends the hospital didn't do enough to protect privacy. "We believe that protocols were not followed or even worse protocols were not in place. And we are determined and we are asking the court to make sure that if West Penn Hospital and other facilities won't do it, that the courts will get involved on behalf of these victims and make sure procedures are in place so no one has to go through this again," Peirce said. Peirce believes this is the tip of the iceberg and there may be more victims out there. After criminal chargers were filed, West Penn Hospital called the allegations reprehensible, and said safe guarding privacy is the utmost priority: "As we stated previously, the allegations described in the criminal charges against a former West Penn Hospital employee are appalling, and West Penn condemns his actions in the strongest possible terms. We are dismayed that such a reprehensible act was committed on our campus. At Allegheny Health Network and West Penn, we place the utmost priority on safeguarding the privacy and dignity of our employees, patients, and visitors, and we deeply regret that some have been unknowingly affected by this criminal act. AHN and West Penn would like to thank the Highmark Health police department and the Allegheny County District Attorney's office, who thoroughly investigated this case over the last several months, leading to the charges being filed. We continue to cooperate fully with authorities as their investigation and prosecution proceed." [GN] WEST ROAD PIZZA: Calhoun Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA CALHOUN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. WEST ROAD PIZZA STOP, INC.; ALI ALSAMAWI; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-12661-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., Sept. 30, 2020), is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately reimburse the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated current and former delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby, failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Sammy's Pizza store in Woodhaven, Michigan, from February 2020 to June 2020. West Road Pizza Stop, Inc., is a company that owns and operates Sammy's Pizza stores in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. Robert M. Howard, Esq. BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C. 990 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 458-6814 E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com - and – Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com WINS FINANCE: Continues to Defend Kamau Shareholder Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wins Finance Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a shareholder class action suit initiated by Samuel Kamau. On July 24, 2020, Samuel Kamau filed a shareholder class action complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period from October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020 against Wins Finance Holdings Inc., Renhui Mu, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-06656). Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that the repayment of a RMB 580 million "loan" to Guohong Asset Management Co., Ltd. was "highly uncertain," and that the resignation of the Company's former independent auditor was "foreseeably likely" given the non-payment of the foregoing loan as well as alleged material weaknesses in the Company's control over financial reporting. The Amended Complaint does not specifically allege the damages purportedly suffered by the class, and we are not yet able to provide a reliable estimate of any such damage claim. Wins Finance said, "We believe that the claims from this proceeding are without merit and basis, we are vigorously defending this proceeding." Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation Limited. WINS FINANCE: March 2021 Hearing on Desta Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Wins Finance Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that a final settlement approval hearing has been set for March 22, 2021, in the action entitled, Desta v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al. As of June 30, 2018, the Company and certain of its executive officers have been named as defendants in one civil securities lawsuit filed in U.S. District Courts. On April 20, 2017, Michel Desta filed a securities class action complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages against the company, JianmingHao, Renhui Mu, Peiling (Amy) He, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled Desta v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:17-cv-02983) (hereafter, the "California Action"). On June 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and on August 25, 2017 lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. The Amended Complaint (which did not name Peiling (Amy) He as a defendant), alleges a claim against us for securities fraud purportedly arising from alleged misrepresentations concerning Wins' principal executive offices (which alleged misrepresentations resulted in Wins being added to, and then removed from, the Russell 2000 index). On October 24, 2017,the company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim as against it. On March 1, 2018, the District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. Thus, the civil action has proceeded to the fact gathering "discovery" stage in respect to the Company. As a result of a private mediation conducted in November 2018, the Company agreed in principle to settle the class action, on behalf of all remaining defendants. The full terms of that settlement remain confidential (but include certain contingencies concerning shareholder participation in the settlement and required court approvals). The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement by order entered on March 4, 2019. Given that the Company has not yet received the necessary approvals from Chinese regulators as to the transfer of the settlement funds from China to the United States, the Court entered an Order dated August 11, 2020 setting a final settlement approval hearing for March 22, 2021. Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation Limited. WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Consolidated Suit v. Comerica Bank Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that Comerica Bank continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a consolidated class action (Class Action) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (California District Court) brought on behalf of former Noteholders and Unitholders against Comerica Bank. It is comprised of five separate lawsuits filed between January 4, 2018 and April 26, 2018. The five lawsuits were consolidated, Lead Class Counsel was appointed, and Lead Class Counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 19, 2019. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 2), negligence (Count 3), and violations of California's unfair competition law (Count 4). On November 1, 2019, Comerica moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction). With respect to Count 1 (aiding and abetting fraud) and Count 2 (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty), Comerica argued that the Class Plaintiffs’ allegations did not demonstrate that Comerica had actual knowledge of the underlying fraud and breach of fiduciary duty that Comerica is alleged to have aided and abetted; with respect to Count 3 (negligence), Comerica argued that there is no duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica; and with respect to Count 4 (California Unfair Competition Law), Comerica argued that a claim for unfair competition fails when there is no actual knowledge of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty and no duty owed. In addition, Comerica argued that all causes of action failed to state a claim for the additional reason that Comerica's filing or non-filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) under federal law cannot support any of the causes of action, and that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because all of the causes of action belong to the Liquidation Trust such that the Class Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue them. On August 5, 2020, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Comerica's motion to dismiss. The Court denied Comerica's request to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 on the ground that the allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint sufficiently alleged that Comerica had the requisite knowledge of the underlying fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The Court granted Comerica's request to dismiss Count 3 on the ground that the allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint did not sufficiently allege a duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica. On Count 4, the Court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent it relied on a failure to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) (which claim the Court found was preempted by federal law, which prohibits disclosure of a SAR), but denied the motion to dismiss to the extent the complaint relied on violations arising from non-SAR-related conduct, and the Court granted the class leave to amend the complaint. The Court also denied Comerica's request to dismiss based on Comerica's allegations that the class lacked standing and that the Trust cannot be a member of a class, finding instead that the class has plausibly alleged standing to sue, and that the question of whether the Trust can be a class member did not need to be answered at this stage. On August 26, 2020, the putative class filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 2), and violations of California’s unfair competition law (Count 3). Comerica's response to the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint has not yet been filed. The Trustee asserts that he is a member of the putative class and Comerica disputes that assertion. Woodbridge Liquidation Trust (the Trust) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC (the "Wind-Down Entity") were formed pursuant to the Plan. The purpose of the Trust is to prosecute various causes of action owned by the Trust, to litigate and resolve claims filed against the Debtors, to pay allowed administrative and priority claims against the Debtors (including professional fees), to receive cash from certain sources and, in accordance with the Plan, to make distributions of cash to Interestholders subject to the retention of various reserves and after the payment of Trust expenses and administrative and priority claims. The trust is based in Sherman Oaks, California. WOODVALLEY LANDSCAPE: Martinez Seeks Landscapers' Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS MARTINEZ and RAMON COLON CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. WOODVALLEY LANDSCAPE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04011-LMM (N.D. Ga., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated landscapers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek due to misclassifying them as independent contractors. Mr. Martinez and Mr. Colon Cruz were employed by the Defendant as drivers and landscapers from approximately 2018 until July 25, 2020, and from approximately 2019 to August 2020, respectively. Woodvalley Landscape, Inc., is a provider of landscape services with its principal place of business in Gwinnett County, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael D. Forrest, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com WPX ENERGY: Order of Dismissal Issued in Hudson Suit ---------------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 5, 2020, that the court in Hudson v. Muncrief, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0095-JRS, has granted a Stipulation and Order Regarding Mootness Fee Request, Notice, and Dismissal. In connection with the acquisition of Felix Investments Holdings II, LLC (the "Acquisition"), WPX Energy, Inc. (the "Company") and the members of its Board of Directors were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hudson v. Muncrief, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0095-JRS. On March 3, 2020, the Court approved the dismissal of the Hudson action as moot following the Company's filing of certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Acquisition on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 28, 2020. The Court retained jurisdiction to consider any application for attorneys' fees and expenses submitted by the Hudson action plaintiff or her counsel (the "Fee Request"). On September 28, 2020, the Court granted a Stipulation and Order Regarding Mootness Fee Request, Notice, and Dismissal (the "Order") in the Hudson Action to resolve the Fee Request. The Order requires that the Company give notice of the Order to its stockholders. A copy of the order is available at https://bit.ly/36I1fhw. Tulsa, Oklahoma-based WPX Energy, Inc. operates in the exploration and production segment of the oil and gas industry and its operations are primarily located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico Colorado. The Company specialize in development and production from tight-sands and shale formations in the Delaware, Williston and San Juan Basins. XCEL CARE: Mogocha Seeks Proper Minimum and OT Pay for Caregivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Felistus Mogocha and all others similarly situated v. Xcel Care, LLC and Patricia A. Ackeifi, Case No. 3:20-cv-01492 (D. Conn., Sept. 30, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay to the Plaintiff and the putative class members in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by the federal and state laws, and failed to accurately record all hours she worked, including interruptions during the live-in sleep and meal breaks. She asserts that she and the class members were frequently interrupted during the night and failed to get at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep time but the Defendants assumed that they all had eight hours of uninterrupted sleep time and took three full one-hour meal breaks and failed to pay them for this time. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Home Health Aide, a/k/a Caregiver, on September 1, 2018. Xcel Care, LLC, is a non-medical home health care agency in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com YAYYO INC: Faces Hamlin Suit Over 90% Drop in IPO Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON J. HAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YAYYO, INC.; RAMY EL-BATRAWI; JONATHAN ROSEN; KEVIN PICKARD; HARBANT S. SIDHU; JEFFREY GUZY; CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO; PAUL RICHTER; AEGIS CAPITAL CORP.; and WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-08235 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2020), is brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded YayYo securities pursuant and traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with YayYo's November 14, 2019 initial public offering, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, on November 14, 2019, YayYo filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the final prospectus for the IPO of common stock on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, YayYo sold 2,625,000 shares at $4.00 per share, purportedly the "total gross proceeds from the offering were $10,500,000." The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from the Company's Registration Statement, YayYo's stock price has fallen significantly below its IPO price, damaging the Plaintiff and the Class members, according to the complaint. As of the filing of this Complaint, YayYo's stock trades at approximately 40 cents per share, a 90% decline from the price the stock was offered at the IPO. YayYo, Inc., develops and delivers a rideshare booking and cost comparison application. The Company offers a metasearch application for smartphones that provides price comparison and booking of available ride sharing, as well as taxi and public transportation services. YayYo serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***