/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201012.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 204
Headlines
132 N GROVE: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in New Jersey
212 GRAND FOOD: Faces Loh Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
9F INC: Faces Ho Securities Suit Over Drop in Price of ADSs IPO
ABC AIRPORT: Mejias Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
AJ PIEDIMONTE: Court Approves $250K Settlement in Cardenas Suit
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez's Bid for TRO for Inmates Denied
ALTRU HEALTH: Rosenkranz Assert Employees' Fund Mismanagement
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Plan Check Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
AMICA MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Suit Says
AT&T: To Settle Class Action Over Throttling
ATEKI LLC: Gauthier Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime Wages
AURORA CANNABIS: Lawless Sues Over 11.63% Drop in Share Price
BAIDU INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
BARBELL APPAREL: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BASF CATALYSTS: $72.5MM Deal on Emtal Talc Suit Gets Prelim. OK
BILL MILLER BAR-B-Q: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIRTHDAY IN A BOX: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BOGS FOOTWEAR: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BRAHMIN LEATHER: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
BROADBASE INC: Faces Compton Employment Suit in Calif. Super Ct.
BROKER SOLUTIONS: Faces Maldonado Labor Suit in C.D. California
C.I. LOBSTER: Pagan Sues for Denied OT Pay, Racial Slurs
CALPORTLAND COMPANY: Lambert FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
CAREINGTON INT'L: Delacruz Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in Attix Suit
CARS.COM LLC: Faces Mason CIPA Suit Asserting Wiretapping Claims
CHARLES TYRWHITT: Faces Suarez Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
CHEMEON SURFACE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Harris Suit
CIGNA HEALTH: Santiago Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Militello FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Caufield ERISA Suit
COLONY CREDIT: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Securities Class Action
CONTACTABILITY.COM LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
D DROPS COMPANY: Faces Walter Perez Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
DARE COUNTY, NC: Blackburn Appeals E.D.N.C Ruling to 4th Circuit
DEL TACO LLC: Faces Cabral Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages
DENVER, CO: Faces DHOL Class Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violation
DISCOVER BANK: Perez Civil Rights Suit Removed to N.D. California
DOCTOR LIMON: Faces Lucius Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
DONALD J. TRUMP: Renewed Motion for Class Certification Filed
EARLY AUTUMN: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
EVERFRESH ENDEAVORS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Lucius Says
FARADAY LABS: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Court Certifies Loan Borrowers Class
FORD MOTOR: Soy-Based Parts Result to Wiring Damages, Dass Claims
FRASER FINANCIAL: Loyhayem Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
GOLF WAREHOUSE: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
GREEN GRASS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Romero Claims
HAI CANG SEAFOOD: Cabrera Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
HARBORSIDE INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
HAYWARD SISTERS: Davila Challenges Illegal Employment Practices
HEAD N' HOME: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Delacruz Claims
HIMS INC: Delacruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
ICONIC GROUP: Faces Fontana TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
IKEA NORTH: Wilson Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
INDIANA BOTANIC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Alerts of Class Action Filing
JOHNNIE-O INC: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
KFORCE INC: Gofton Sues Over Improper Overtime Pay for Recruiters
KIA MOTORS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Kondash Suit
LATINO CONCEPTS: Blind Users Can't Access Mobile App, Gomez Says
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gaston Appeals Ruling in DPPA Suit to 4th Cir.
LULU & GEORGIA INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in New York
LUMONDI INC: Biddick Files Suit in New York
LYFT INC: Keiner Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Litigation
MANHATTAN MEDICAL: Delacruz Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
MARCO POLO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Alleges
MARIE BURGOS DESIGN: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
MISSION NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gallardo Claims
MOMENTA PHARMA: Post Slams Sale to J&J for Lack of Information
MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Massre Case Settlement Has Initial Approval
NCAA: Walden Class Suit Moved From M.D. Georgia to N.D. Illinois
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Omigie in Gulino Bias Suit
NIKOLA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Class Action Filing
NIKOLA CORP: Kaskela Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Sanchez Balks at Sale of Faulty Controllers
NORTH DAKOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Thunderhawk Suit
NORTH DAKOTA: Morton County Appeals Ruling in Thunderhawk Suit
NORWEGIAN AIR: Daversa-Evdyriadis Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
ONESTAFF MEDICAL: Madison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PANDORA JEWELRY: Faces Cota Suit Over Web Site's Access Barriers
PANINI LA CAFE: Fails to Correctly Pay OT Wages, Martinez Claims
PARMA VTA LLC: Ohio App. Affirms Denial of Stay in Gerston Suit
PARS HEATING: Chinchilla-Gonzales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PATHFACTORY CORP: Winegard Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
PERI & SONS: Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
PRO ATHLETE INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Anthony Sues in S.D. Calif. Over TCPA Violation
PROPULSION CONTROLS: Colter Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
PROVIDENT TITLE: Order Sustaining Demurrer in Ukoha Suit Affirmed
REAL SIMPLE: Fagerstrom Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
REFRESHED ENTERPRISE: Faces Doe Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Franklin FLSA Suit
SARASOTA DOCTORS: Bid to Remand Day Suit to State Court Denied
SAVILINO LLC: Faces Suit in New York for ADA Breach
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Retirement Sys. Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Parker Appeals Orders in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
UNITED STATES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Scholl Prisoner Suit
US BANK: Kehler Files Suit in Kansas
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacob Suit Wins Class Status
VIKING INSURANCE: Bradley Files Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
WALMART INC: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in California
WENDY'S INT'L: Zamora ADA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
WESCO INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
WOLVERINE WORLD: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
ZF ACTIVE: Faces Adams Suit Over Faulty TRW Airbag Control Units
*********
132 N GROVE: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 132 N GROVE LLC, 315 WEST 8TH STREET LLC, 610 EAST FRONT LLC,
259 REYNOLDS LLC, 359 NO. MAPLE LLC, 480 HEYWOOD LLC, 641 LINCOLN
LLC, 671 LINCOLN LLC, 490 TREMONT LLC, 580 FOREST LLC, 418-30
CENTRAL LLC, 678 SCOTLAND LLC, 539 CENTRAL AVE LLC, 199 GARSIDE
LLC, 61 SCHLEY LLC, and THG PROPERTIES, LLC, and DEAN SERRATELLI,
individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-13932 (D.N.J., Oct. 5, 2020), seeks
to recover from the Defendants overtime compensation and unpaid
earned wages owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally,
willfully and repeatedly harmed the Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective by failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rate
for all hours worked, and by failing to keep accurate records of
hours worked by employees and, therefore, failing to provide
accurate wage statements as required by the federal and state
laws.
Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a building
superintendent from February 1, 2019, through August 21, 2020.
The Defendants are companies specializing in commercial property
management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
212 GRAND FOOD: Faces Loh Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIM KEONG LOH, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 212 GRAND FOOD CORP. d/b/a Kong Kee Food, Case No.
1:20-cv-04744 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law arising from Defendant's various willfully
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated collective action members minimum
wages in the lawful amount for hours worked, failed to pay
statutory overtime rate of time and one half for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per week, failed to provide meal periods, failed to
maintain adequate and accurate written records of actual hours
worked and true wages earned by the Plaintiff, failed to provide
time of hire wage notice, and failed to provide wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to work as a dry foods
packer and miscellaneous worker in April 2019 to March 11, 2020.
212 Grand Food Corp., d/b/a Kong Kee Food, operates a vertically
integrated tofu manufactory in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
9F INC: Faces Ho Securities Suit Over Drop in Price of ADSs IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANDY HO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. 9F INC., LEI SUN, YANJUN LIN, YIFAN REN, CHANGXING
XIAO, FLYNN XUXIAN HUANG, IVAN XU, JUNSHENG ZHANG, WING HON CHEUNG,
SIU FUNG MING, FANGXIONG GONG, DAVID CUI, LEI LIU, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY
LIMITED, CLSA LIMITED, CHINA INVESTMENT SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL
BROKERAGE LIMITED and 9F PRIMASIA SECURITIES LIMITED, Case No.
654654/2020, (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Sept. 23, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' violation of the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the issuance of false and misleading statements
relating to 9F's proposed initial public offering of its American
Depositary Shares.
The securities class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all persons, who purchased or acquired ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the IPO and declared effective on August 14, 2019.
According to the complaint, on December 5, 2019, soon after the
IPO, 9F reported its third quarter 2019 financial results--the same
quarter during which the IPO had been conducted. The Company's net
accounts receivable had ballooned in size from RMB180 million as of
December 31, 2018, to RMB1.9 billion, a more than ten-fold
increase, as of September 30, 2019.
On June 12, 2020, the Company stated that it had been involved in
an ongoing dispute with its critical insurance partner, PICC
Property and Casualty Company Limited, despite the fact that the
dispute had not been published in the Registration Statement that
allegedly contained materially false and misleading statements of
fact and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed therein
regarding 9F's business, operations and prospects.
On June 17, 2020, 9F issued a press release providing its fourth
quarter and full year 2019 financial results. The release provided
further confirmation that 9F's dispute with PICC predated the IPO
and had caused material damage to 9F's business, operations and
financial results. The release stated that the Company's dramatic
increase in net accounts receivable--which had notably increased in
the second quarter 2019 and third quarter 2019 was due to its
dispute with PICC. The magnitude of the outstanding balance, which
stood at more than RMB1.4 billion, also indicated that the amount
owed had been increasing for many months prior to the end of 2019,
the suit says.
Subsequent to the IPO, the price of 9F ADSs has plummeted in value.
As of the filing of the complaint, 9F ADSs were trading at less
than $0.90 per share.
9F Inc. claims to be a leading digital financial account platform
that integrates and personalizes financial services in China.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Haitong International
Securities Company Limited, CLSA Limited, China Investment
Securities International Brokerage Limited, and 9F Primasia
Securities Limited serve as underwriters for 9F's IPO.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 292-5690
Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (470) 632-6000
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
ABC AIRPORT: Mejias Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MEJIAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ABC AIRPORT PARKING LLC, and WILLIAM CASTILLO, individually,
Case No. 2:20-cv-13543-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Sept. 29, 2020), is a
collective action brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid full
time valet and driver from November 2015 until February 12, 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that he worked 80 hours per week during the
months of October, November, December and January, and 48 to 56
hours per week during February through September. But, despite
regularly working over 40 hours as required by the Defendants, the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at one and one-half times his
hourly rate of pay for his hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with paid
sick or personal time beginning in November 2018, according to the
complaint.
ABC Airport Parking LLC is a transportation and valet company.
William Castillo has been an owner, partner, officer and/or manager
of ABC managing the day to day financial operations, the company
tome and pay practices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
33 State Road, Suite A-1
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (201) 687-9977
Fax: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
AJ PIEDIMONTE: Court Approves $250K Settlement in Cardenas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued
a Decision and Order granting Parties' Joint Letter Request for
Approval of Their Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Release in
the case captioned ARMANDO CARDENAS, et al. v. A.J. PIEDIMONTE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00881 EAW
(W.D.N.Y.).
The total settlement amount is $250,000.00, which falls in between
the Parties' opening damages computations. Each of the Plaintiffs
will receive a meaningful payment (ranging from $710.17 to
$27,165.42).
Named Plaintiffs Armando Cardenas, Jose F. Cardenas, Juanita
Senteno, Veronica Simmons Bailey, Isaiah Alexander, Kathy
Alexander, and Shonda Tate commenced the instant action on August
8, 2018, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
The Complaint alleges that Named Plaintiffs are former employees of
Defendants A.J. Piedimonte Agricultural Development, LLC, James J.
Piedimonte & Sons, Inc, James J. Piedimonte & Sons, LLC, MAGC,
Inc., Anthony Joseph Piedimonte, and Scott James Bennett
(collectively "Defendants"), and that, among other things, they
were not paid the minimum hourly rates required by law.
On September 20, 2018, the Court referred the matter to United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for supervision of all
pre-trial matters except dispositive motions. On November 27, 2018,
Judge Roemer issued a Decision and Order conditionally certifying
the matter as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). In
addition to Named Plaintiffs, 41 individuals ("Opt-In Plaintiffs")
(together with Named Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs") have opted-in to
participation in this lawsuit.
The Parties participated in a mediation session before Nelson
Thomas, Esq. on May 21, 2019. On January 14, 2020, Judge Roemer
presided over a settlement conference wherein the parties made
significant process towards a mutually agreeable resolution of the
matter. On April 10, 2020, the parties submitted to the Court a
joint letter request for approval of their negotiated Settlement
Agreement and Release.
The Court approves the Settlement Agreement, subject to
modification of the non-disparagement provision. The Court further
approves a fee of $21,725.00 for the Claims Administrator, and a
payment of $3,050.70 in costs and $15,648.00 in attorneys' fees to
the Plaintiffs' counsel.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties
shall exchange signed copies thereof within seven days of entry of
this Decision and Order. The Plaintiffs shall thereafter file a
stipulation of dismissal, again in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6vutd8b from
Leagle.com.
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez's Bid for TRO for Inmates Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order in the case captioned DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al. v.
GREGORY J. AHERN, et al., Case No. 19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs bring three Section 1983 claims against Alameda
County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Gregory Ahearn,
Tom Madigan as the Commander in Charge of Detention and
Corrections, D. Hesselein as the Detention and Corrections Captain
at Santa Rita Jail, four individual Sheriff's deputies, Wellpath
Management, Inc., and Aramark Correctional Services LLC.
The Plaintiffs are 14 current and former inmates of Santa Rita Jail
in Alameda County, California. They bring this Section 1983
putative class action alleging violation of their First, Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Plaintiffs have
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking injunctive
relief to protect the prisoners at Santa Rita Jail from the
Defendants' alleged continuing failure to provide reasonable
COVID-19 prevention, care, and treatment.
In particular, the Plaintiffs seek redress for conditions
including: (1) Excessive lock down, and inadequate time out of
cell; (2) Inadequate outdoor recreation; (3) Unsanitary conditions
of confinement; (4) Food that is infested with rodents, insects and
bird droppings; (5) Food that is inedible due to excessive cooking
and overheating; (6) Food that is inedible due to age, poor storage
and spoilage, (7) Food that lacks nutritional value and consists
primarily of soy powder, white flour and sugar; (8) Lack of medical
care for newly booked detainees who are detoxing from drugs; and
(9) Requiring prisoners to provide the medical care for newly
booked, detoxing detainees.
In denying the Motion, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood
of success on their claim that the Defendants are deliberately
indifferent to the risks of exposure to COVID-19 at Santa Rita Jail
or deliberately indifferent with respect to the medical care
provided to those with COVID-19 at Santa Rita Jail.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybtpfve3 from Leagle.com.
ALTRU HEALTH: Rosenkranz Assert Employees' Fund Mismanagement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jana R. Rosenkranz, Joan Mondry and Ramona Drisco, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. Altru Health System, the Chief Financial officer and the Chief
People Resource Executive of Altru Health System, the Investment
Committee and Retirement Committee of Altru Health System and Does
No. 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00168 (D. N.D., September 9,
2020) seeks equitable and injunctive relief for breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and for violation the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Altru is a non-profit community of 3,800 health professionals and
support staff serving over 200,000 residents in northeast North
Dakota and northwest Minnesota. Plaintiffs are former employees of
Altru and are participants in the a defined contribution or
individual account plan that provides for individual accounts for
each participant and for benefits based solely upon the amount
contributed to those accounts and any income, expense, gains and
losses and any forfeitures of accounts of the participants which
may be allocated to such participant's account. Altru Health System
is responsible for appointing the members of the Investment and
Retirement Committees that is responsible for selecting and
monitoring the performance of the funds available for investment in
the plan.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to objectively and
adequately review the plan's investment portfolio in terms of cost
and maintained certain funds in the plan despite the availability
of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or
better performance histories. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
Email: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of American
Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP" or the "Company") (NYSE: AEP)
between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased AEP common stock, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit AEP 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 false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company covertly participated in "the largest public
corruption case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled
substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and politicians
to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefited the
Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company
partially funded a massive, misleading advertising campaign in
support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal
HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark money
entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company's
involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot
initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' Class Period statements regarding the Company's
regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and
misleading; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would
face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed
risk of reputational, legal and financial harm; (8) the bribery
scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9)
contrary to the Company's repeated public statements regarding a
move to clean energy, it sought a dirty energy bailout; (10)
contrary to the Company's repeated public statements regarding
protection of its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra
and state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about AEP's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On July 25, 2020, the Columbus Dispatch published an article
entitled "Columbus utility giant AEP funded dark money spending in
HB 6 campaign" which reported on the Company's actions in
connection with the growing scandal.
On this news, AEP shares fell $4.79 per share, or over 5%, to close
at $83.26 per share on July 27, 2020, the next trading day, on
unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 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 AEP common stock, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/americanelectricpowercompanyinc-aep-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-293/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. © 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]
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Plan Check Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Plan Check Downtown III, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in its lawsuit entitled Plan Check Downtown III, LLC
v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06954-GW-SK,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 27,
2020, the lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 31, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06954-GW-SK to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff, a restauranteur, seeks Business Income insurance
coverage under a policy AmGUARD allegedly issued to it. The
Plaintiff asserts four causes of action in its complaint against
AmGUARD. These causes of action are declaratory judgment; breach of
contract; bad faith breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and unfair business practices.
The appellate case is captioned as Plan Check Downtown III, LLC v.
AmGuard Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20-56020, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by October 30, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on November 30, 2020;
-- Appellant Plan Check Downtown III, LLC's opening brief is
due on January 8, 2021;
-- Appellees AmGuard Insurance Company and Does' answering
brief is due on February 8, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PLAN CHECK DOWNTOWN III, LLC, a California
limited liability company and others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Kathryn Lee Boyd, Esq.
HECHT PARTNERS LLP
125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 502-9515
E-mail: lboyd@hechtpartners.com
Defendant-Appellee AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania
company, is represented by:
Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 407-7557
E-mail: ckronenberg@stblaw.com
AMICA MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MAO-MSO
RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, a segregated series of MAO-MSO II
LLC v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24050 (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 2, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendant's flagrant and
systematic failure to comply with the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to honor their
primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act by failing to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law.
The Defendants have also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members for accident-related medical expenses upon entering
into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost
of those accident-related medical expenses has been borne by
Medicare and MA Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds
and the public. The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid
or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary
payers, the suit says.
The Plaintiff has established various designated series pursuant to
Delaware law in order to maintain various claims recovery
assignments separate from other company assets, and to account for
and associate certain assets with certain particular series.
Based in Lincoln, Rhode Island, Amica Mutual Insurance Company is a
company that issues property and casualty policies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd., 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Francesco A. Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
AT&T: To Settle Class Action Over Throttling
--------------------------------------------
AT&T has reached an "agreement in principle" to settle a
long-running class-action lawsuit over allegations that it slowed
the broadband connections of subscribers who purchased unlimited
data.
News of the potential settlement was revealed in papers filed with
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco.
Terms of the deal are expected to be finalized within 80 days.
Assuming the deal moves forward, it will resolve a lawsuit dating
to 2015, when California resident Marcus Roberts and other
consumers accused AT&T of selling them "unlimited" data, but
throttling them after they hit a monthly cap ranging from 3 GB to 5
GB.
From 2011 until 2015, AT&T allegedly throttled more than 3.5
million customers with "unlimited" data plans. (The company
subsequently revised its throttling practices, and now only slows
down "unlimited" subscribers who exceed either 50 GB or 22 GB in a
month, and only when the network is congested.)
AT&T initially convinced Chen that the lawsuit by Roberts and the
other consumers belonged in arbitration, given that AT&T's
subscriber agreements require arbitration of all disputes.
But Chen reconsidered in 2018, after the California Supreme Court
ruled against enforcing an arbitration agreement in a separate
matter.
An AT&T spokesperson stated that the company disputes the
allegations, but "elected to settle rather than continuing to
engage in drawn out litigation."
The spokesperson added that the company was "fully transparent"
with customers, "providing notice in multiple ways and going well
beyond the FCC's disclosure requirements."
In addition to the class-action lawsuit, the Federal Trade
Commission prosecuted AT&T for allegedly duping unlimited
subscribers. Last November, the company agreed to resolve that
matter by refunding $60 million to consumers.
The Obama-era Federal Communications Commission also initiated
proceedings against AT&T, proposing a $100-million fine for its
alleged failure to transparency disclose broadband practices.
The current Republican-controlled FCC dropped the prosecution three
years ago. [GN]
ATEKI LLC: Gauthier Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GAUTHIER, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. ATEKI LLC and ANTHONY D'ANDREA, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-05875 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek due to
their misclassification as independent contractors.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Level I and Level II
technician, as well as marketing employee. He was hired as an
independent contractor from October 2018 to December 2019. He was
reclassified as an employee from December 2019 until March 2020.
Ateki LLC is a computer support and services provider located at
684 W. Boughton Road, in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com
AURORA CANNABIS: Lawless Sues Over 11.63% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN LAWLESS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AURORA CANNABIS INC., MICHAEL SINGER, and GLEN IBBOTT,
Case No. 1:20-cv-13819 (D.N.J., Oct. 2, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.
The federal securities class action is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Aurora
securities between February 13, 2020, and September 4, 2020, both
dates inclusive.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release "announc[ing]
an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited
preliminary fiscal fourth quarter 2020 results." Among other
things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to
$1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter
of 2020. The Company also announced that "previously announced
fixed asset impairment charges [were] now expected to be up to $90
million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge
of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain
inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand
with near term expectations for demand."
On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63%,
to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020, causing
significant losses and damages to the Plaintiff and other Class
members, the suit says.
Headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta, Aurora Cannabis Inc. produces
and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@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
BAIDU INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Baidu
Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIDU) between April 8,2016
and August 13, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Baidu securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Baidu Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business
condition of iQIYI; (ii) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (iii)
as a result, Defendants public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On April 7, 2020, during market hours, Wolfpack Research released a
report detailing, among other things, how iQIYI had misled
investors and failed to disclose pertinent information generally
and in its Registration Statement, including: (i) iQIYI overstating
its user numbers; (ii) iQIYI inflating its revenues; (iii) iQIYI
inflating expenses and prices of assets to conceal its revenue
inflation; and (iv) iQIYI misleading financial reporting creating
the appearance of a cash generative company.
On this news, Baidu's ADSs fell $4.46 per ADS, or 4% to close at
$97.33 per ADS on the next full trading April 8, 2020, damaging
investors.
On August 13, 2020 after trading hours, iQIYI issued a press
release entitled "iQIYI announces Second Quarter 2020 Financial
Results" which announced that the SEC's Division of Enforcement was
"seeking the production of certain financial and operational
records dating from January 1, 2018, as well as documents related
to certain acquisitions and investments that were identified in a
report issued by short-seller firm Wolfpack Research in April
2020."
On this news, Baidu's ADSs fell $7.83 per ADS, or 6% to close at
$116.74 per ADS on August 14, 2020 damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 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 Baidu securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/baiduinc-bidu-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-291/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
(877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
BARBELL APPAREL: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barbell Apparel
L.L.C. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barbell Apparel L.L.C., Case No.
1:20-cv-08297 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barbell Apparel makes clothing for active and athletic people when
they aren't in the gym.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BASF CATALYSTS: $72.5MM Deal on Emtal Talc Suit Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Notice Agent of the settlement reached in Williams v. BASF
Catalysts LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:11-cv-01754 (D.N.J.) released
information about the settlement.
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey has preliminarily approved a
class action settlement reached between Defendants BASF Catalysts,
LLC ("BASF") and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP ("Cahill") and
Plaintiffs to resolve claims relating to prior Emtal Talc
litigation by creating a non-reversionary fund of $72.5 million to
pay up to 19,000 potential claimants and agreeing to pay fees and
other expenses as described in the Settlement Agreement.
Emtal Talc was used in the manufacturing of industrial products.
This settlement does not involve any kind of personal cosmetic
product such as baby, body, or talcum powder. The settlement
resolves a class action lawsuit in which Plaintiffs claim that from
1984 until 2009 Engelhard (BASF acquired Engelhard in 2006), its
former national law firm Cahill, and employees of the two
companies, made misstatements or concealed evidence about the
existence of alleged asbestos in Emtal Talc and failed to disclose
related information to plaintiffs, their lawyers, and courts in the
Underlying Lawsuits. Plaintiffs claim that due to these
misstatements and omissions, Plaintiffs in the Underlying Lawsuits
either (1) voluntarily agreed to dismiss or settle their cases for
less than they otherwise would have accepted or (2) had their cases
involuntarily dismissed by court order upon motions filed by the
Defendants. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and dispute
that any statements about Emtal Talc affected the outcome of the
Underlying Lawsuits because Defendants contend that (1) the claims
in the Underlying Lawsuits were without merit, (2) the amount of
asbestos in Emtal Talc, as reported in historical documents, could
not have caused harm to human health and (3) many of the Underlying
Lawsuits were resolved for fixed amounts irrespective of the
alleged asbestos content of the talc or the number of talc
defendants. Defendants further contend that many of the complaints
merely named Engelhard without any specific allegations regarding
product identification, exposure, or damages. Plaintiffs dispute
these arguments.
BASF also claims that it was not aware of the facts alleged by the
Plaintiffs in this case when it bought Engelhard in 2006 and that
BASF did not learn of the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs'
allegations in this case until 2009.
BASF and Cahill have nevertheless agreed to settle this lawsuit in
the interest of avoiding further costs and the uncertainty of
litigation.
If the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
approves the settlement, then BASF and Cahill will pay $72.5
million into a Settlement Fund to pay Class Members as follows: (a)
$6.25 million to those who prove they are Class Members; (b) $59.75
million to those who sustained an asbestos-related injury; and (c)
$6.5 million to those who experienced an extraordinary physical
injury and/or economic loss allegedly as a result of exposure to
Emtal Talc, as well as an incentive award of $300,000 to six
plaintiffs who helped bring the case. BASF and Cahill have also
agreed to pay court-approved attorneys' fees up to $22.5 million,
court-approved attorneys' expenses up to $1.2 million, and up to
$3.5 million in notice and settlement administration costs.
Class Members may, beginning September 17, 2020 submit claims
online at www.EmtalTalcSettlement.com. The website also provides
instructions for how to file a claim in hard copy through the mail.
The website also provides instructions for how to file a claim in
hard copy through the mail. All claim forms must be filed by
January 15, 2021.
The Court will hold a hearing on July 29, 2021 to consider whether
to approve the settlement. Class Members have until December 16,
2020 to exclude themselves from, or object to, the settlement.
For more information, visit www.EmtalTalcSettlement.com or call
1-888-401-1929. [GN]
BILL MILLER BAR-B-Q: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bill Miller Bar-B-Q
Enterprises, LTD. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bill Miller Bar-B-Q
Enterprises, LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-08257 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bill Miller Bar-B-Q is a San Antonio-headquartered restaurant chain
that focuses on barbecue food, accompanying side dishes, and baked
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BIRTHDAY IN A BOX: Faces Paguada ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birthday In A Box,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Birthday In A Box, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08261 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Birthday in a Box is an online source for party supplies and party
kits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BOGS FOOTWEAR: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bogs Footwear. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bogs Footwear, Case No. 1:20-cv-08264
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BOGS sells boots for kids, women, and men provide comfort and
protection from rain, snow, and anything mother nature throws at
them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BRAHMIN LEATHER: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brahmin Leather
Works, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Brahmin Leather Works,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08267 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brahmin is a designer and manufacturer of handbags and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Braskem S.A. Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff.
Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK)
Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020
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 also
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion 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 Maceió."
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.
On July 9, 2020, 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.
The complaint, filed on August 25, 2020, 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) 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.
For more information on the Braskem securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/BAK
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
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]
BROADBASE INC: Faces Compton Employment Suit in Calif. Super Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Broadbase, Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Harrison Compton, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Broadbase, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
Case No. 34-2020-00285501-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Sept. 22, 2020).
The case type is stated as Other employment.
Broadbase, Inc., is an oil change service provider in West
Sacramento, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (888) 209-8927
E-mail: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
BROKER SOLUTIONS: Faces Maldonado Labor Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA MALDONADO and CYNTHIA SORIANO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a NEW
AMERICAN FUNDING; and DOES 1 through 5, Case No. 8:20-cv-01906
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), arises from the Defendants' multiple and
wide-spread violations of the California Labor Code toward their
current and former employees.
The violations allegedly committed by the Defendants include: (a)
failure to reimburse travel expenses, personal cellular telephone
usage, and other business expenses; (b) improper classification of
mortgage loan officers as "outside sales persons," and as a result
failing to pay minimum wage for meal breaks and other non-sales
time, and failure to pay overtime; (c) failure to pay wages on a
timely basis, with proper documentation; and (d) failure to provide
prompt payment of wages and other moneys due to separated
employees.
In addition to the California Labor Code violations, the Defendants
also allegedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act with regard
to its use of pre-employment employee background checks.
Specifically, the FCRA provides that a prospective employee must
give consent to the background check, which includes both
disclosure and authorization, where the authorization and
disclosure forms must stand alone, without any extraneous
information. The Defendants' disclosure form fails to do this
because it contains information related to an unrelated rule
governing mortgage loan officers, the suit says.
Plaintiff Maldonado was hired to start working for the Defendants
on November 26, 2018, in the position of sales manager. Plaintiff
Soriano was also hired to start working for the Defendants on
January 13, 2020, in the position of sales manager.
Broker Solutions, Inc., d/b/a New American Funding, is a
California-based company that provides mortgage lending
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Babak Semnar, Esq.
Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
Telephone: (951) 293-4187
Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
C.I. LOBSTER: Pagan Sues for Denied OT Pay, Racial Slurs
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. C.I. Lobster Corp., Joseph Mandarino,
Richard Mandarino and John Mandarino, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-07349 (S.D. N.Y., September 9, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws and redress for employment discrimination based on
gender and race, in violation of the New York City Human Rights
Law.
C.I. Lobster operates a restaurant in New York where Pagan worked
as a server. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without being paid overtime pay. He also alleges that Joseph
Mandarino, owner of C.I. Lobster Corp., called him a "faggot" and
"immigrant." Pagan is an African-American and Hispanic man. Richard
and John Mandarino allegedly called him "nigga" on a daily basis.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Finn W. Dusenbery, Esq.
THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
401 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 571-2000
Fax: (212) 571-0505
Email: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com
CALPORTLAND COMPANY: Lambert FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lindsay Lambert, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CalPortland Company, DOES
1-100, Case No. CIVDS2016789, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct.
5, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02065 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
CalPortland is a building materials company, which produces cement
and construction material products on the west coast of the United
States.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 239-9800
Fax: (213) 239-9045
Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletreedeakins.com
CAREINGTON INT'L: Delacruz Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Careington
International Corporation. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz,
On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v.
Careington International Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08275
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Careington International Corporation is a leading provider of
discount programs for health, wellness and lifestyle services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Order in Attix Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled William Attix v.
Carrington Mortgage Services, Case No. 1:20-cv-22183-UU, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Contract
Actions.
The appellate case is captioned as William Attix v. Carrington
Mortgage Services, Case No. 20-13575, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief is due on or before November 2, 2020;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before October 21, 2020 as to Appellee William Attix.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM ATTIX, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM
2 Alhambra Plaza, Ste. 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 536-8220
E-mail: howard@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
adam@moskowitz-law.com
Defendant-Appellant CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC is
represented by:
Andrew Fuller, Esq.
Brian W. Toth, Esq.
GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, PA
1221 Brickell Ave., Ste. 2010
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 728-0950
E-mail: afuller@gsgpa.com
btoth@gsgpa.com
- and -
Valerie L. Hletko, Esq.
BUCKLEY, LLP
2001 M St. NW, Ste. 500
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 349-8000
E-mail: vhletko@buckleyfirm.com
- and -
Scott T. Sakiyama, Esq.
BUCKLEY SANDLER, LLP
353 N Clark St., Ste. 3600
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 924-9800
E-mail: ssakiyama@buckleyfirm.com
CARS.COM LLC: Faces Mason CIPA Suit Asserting Wiretapping Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARS.COM, LLC and LEAD INTELLIGENCE, INC. d/b/a
JORNAYA, Case No. 4:20-cv-06847 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have embedded a wiretap
in the computer code of car.com and used it to secretly observe and
record website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other
electronic communications, including the entry of Personally
Identifiable Information (PII).
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant Jornaya's software called
"Visual Playback" would have created a video capturing the
Plaintiff's keystrokes and mouse clicks, specifically his name,
phone number, email, IP address, and device type, on cars.com
during his visit in July 2020, since it says on its website that
its "real time" recording of user interactions begins "the moment a
customer lands on a webpage."
According to the complaint, Defendant Jornaya is a self-admitted
eavesdropper, who uses wiretaps by claiming that its LeadiD product
is a marketing tool that "unlocks 50+ data points to help buyers
and seller evaluate the quality and performance of leads."
Lead Intelligence, Inc., d/b/a Jornaya, provides a variety of "real
time" products, such as "TCPA Guardian" and "LeadiD", for
companies, who engage in telemarketing. One of Jornaya's partners
is CARS.COM, LLC, which used Jornaya's TCPA Guardian, LeadiD, and
Visual Playback on its website, car.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
- and –
Joshua Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
CHARLES TYRWHITT: Faces Suarez Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles Tyrwhitt,
Inc. The case is styled as Lazaro Suarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Charles Tyrwhitt, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05915 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Charles Tyrwhitt LLP manufactures men's and women's apparel. The
Company's products include a range of clothing including shirts,
trousers, suits, coats and jackets, dresses, shoes, evening wear,
and accessories, with operations in the United Kingdom, France, the
United States, Spain, Kuwait, and Singapore.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael William Drew, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 967-7220
Email: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com
CHEMEON SURFACE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Harris Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dean Meiling, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Marc Harris v. Dean Meiling,
et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00339-MMD-CLB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada, Reno.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 7,
2020, Chief Judge Miranda Du of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada dismissed the class action.
Plaintiff Marc Harris sought to represent a class of investors who
lost money after investing in Metalast International LLC against
the "Chemeon Defendants" and Defendants Janet Chubb, Tiffany
Schwartz, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, and Kaempfer Crowell, Ltd.
(Attorney Defendants). The Chemeon Defendants refer to Chemeon
Surface Technology LLC ("Chemeon"), DSM P GP LLC, DSM Partners, LP,
Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling, Meridian Advantage, James Proctor,
and Suite B LLC.
The Plaintiff basically alleges that Defendants conspired to
improperly take Metalast through a state receivership proceeding
resulting in the Meiling family taking control of Metalast at a
discount.
The Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) financial elder abuse in
violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section
15610.30, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, (4)
intentional misrepresentation, (5) professional negligence, (6)
constructive trust, (7) violation of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, (8) misappropriation, and (9)
conversion.
The appellate case is captioned as Marc Harris v. Dean Meiling, et
al., Case No. 20-16931, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Chemeon Surface Technology LLC, DSM P GP LLC,
DSM Partners, LP, Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling and Suite B
LLC's Mediation Questionnaire is due on October 13, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 2, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 1, 2020;
-- Appellants Chemeon Surface Technology LLC, DSM P GP LLC,
DSM Partners, LP, Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling and Suite B
LLC's opening brief is due on January 11, 2021;
-- Appellee Marc Harris answering brief is due on February 11,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MARC HARRIS, an individual on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Marc Y. Lazo, Esq.
K&L LAW GROUP, P.C.
2646 Dupont Drive, Suite 60340
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 216-4000
E-mail: mlazo@kllawgroup.com
Defendants-Appellants DEAN MEILING, an individual; MADYLON MEILING,
an individual; CHEMEON SURFACE TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company; DSM PARTNERS, LP, a Nevada Limited Partnership;
DSM P GP LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and SUITE B LLC,
a Nevada Limited Liability Company, are represented by:
Joshua Michael Halen, Esq.
Timothy A. Lukas, Esq.
Robert C. Ryan, Esq.
J. Robert Smith, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
5441 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 327-3000
E-mail: jmhalen@hollandhart.com
talukas@hollandhart.com
rcryan@hollandhart.com
jrsmith@hollandhart.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Santiago Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JONATHAN SANTIAGO, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
CIGNA HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 284004, was removed
from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County
of Tulare to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 2, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-00766 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period and rest period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, not timely paid final wages, not
timely paid wages during employment, noncompliant wage statements,
failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
Cigna Health & Life Insurance Company is a provider of life and
health insurance services, with its principal place of business
located in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213.443.4300
Facsimile: 213.443.4299
E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com
- and –
Linda N. Bollinger, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
Telephone: (408) 998-4150
Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
E-mail: lbollinger@littler.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces Militello FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Client Services, Inc., et al.
The case is captioned as Megan Militello, as administrator of the
Estate of Elizabe Militello, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc. and John Does 1 through
25, Case No. 7:20-cv-07805-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
Client Services, Inc., is a financial services provider, which
represents clients in recovering delinquent account balances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Caufield ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion and Order dated July 10, 2020, Order dated
July 29, 2020, and Opinion, Order and Final Judgment dated August
24, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled PAUL CAUFIELD and REBECCA
STALEY v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., et al., Case No. 16-cv-4170, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Rebecca McCutcheon (formerly Staley) and Paul Caufield bring this
action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
against Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate),
Colgate-Palmolive Co. Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan),
Laura Flavin, Daniel Marsili and the Employee Relations Committee
of Colgate-Palmolive Co. (the Committee).
The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on their claim for
denial of benefits (Count II) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 with Plaintiff McCutcheon acting as the sole class
representative.
Ms. McCutcheon took her benefits under the Plan in the form of a
lump sum when she left Colgate in 1994. She was eligible to receive
benefits under Appendix C Section 2 of the Plan because she elected
to make employee contributions to continue earning benefits under
the pre-July 1989 final average pay formula. She was not eligible
under Appendix D.
The Defendants granted additional benefits under the RAA to a few
hundred Plan participants. McCutcheon was not among them. In a
letter to the Plan Administrator. McCutcheon stated that it had
come to her attention that she should be receiving a RAA benefit in
addition to her original lump sum benefit. She requested that the
Plan provide her a RAA benefit and an explanation of how it was
calculated. Flavin, Colgate's Vice President for Global
Compensation and Benefits, responded on behalf of the Committee and
denied McCutcheon's claim for an RAA benefit.
The Court held that Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted because they have proven, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Rule 23's requirements are met and that McCutcheon
has class standing.
The appellate case is captioned as McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive
Co., Case No. 20-3225, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Paul Caufield, On behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and Rebecca McCutcheon, On
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Eli Gottesdiener, Esq,
GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC
498 7th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Telephone: (718) 788-1500
E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants Colgate-Palmolive Co., Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Employee's Ret. Income Plan, Laura Flavin, Daniel Marsili, and
Employee Relations Committee of Colgate-Palmolive Co. are
represented by:
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza, 825 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
E-mail: echesler@cravath.com
COLONY CREDIT: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. ("Colony" or "the Company") (NYSE:
CLNC) investors that acquired securities in relation to the
combination of Colony NorthStar, Inc., and NorthStar Real Estate
Income Trust, Inc. and NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc., on or
about February 1, 2018 (the "Merger").
All investors who purchased shares of Colony Credit Real Estate,
Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately
at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You
may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Colony Credit
Real Estate, Inc., you may, no later than November 9, 2020,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class.
The filed Complaint alleges that the registration statement was
materially false and misleading and failed to state:
-- that certain of Colony Credit's assets' credit quality had
deteriorated prior to the Merger and were continuing to deteriorate
at the time of the Merger;
-- that certain of the Company's loans, including four loans
related to a New York hotel worth approximately $261 million, were
substantially impaired, sufficient collateral to secure the loans
was not available, and it was not likely that these loans would be
repaid;
-- that, as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the
Colony Credit's assets was overstated;
-- that, certain of the assets contributed as part of the Merger
were of substantially lower value than reflected in the financial
statements made public by the Company and the registration
statement;
-- that, as a result, the financial condition of the Company's,
such as its book value, was materially overstated; and
-- that, as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in
the registration statement about the Colony Credit's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory Stone
Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com
kcooper@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735
(212) 545-4774 [GN]
CONTACTABILITY.COM LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMELIA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTACTABILITY.COM LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04817-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, Sept. 14, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and a proposed class overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as sales
representative.
Contactability.com LLC provides insurance, including auto
insurance, home insurance, life insurance, and health insurance, to
its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
D DROPS COMPANY: Faces Walter Perez Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER D. PEREZ, M.D., S.C., an Illinois corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. THE D DROPS COMPANY INC., an Ontario Canada business
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-05805 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 30, 2020), is
brought as a class action lawsuit to challenge the Defendant's
alleged unlawful practice of sending "unsolicited advertisements"
by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an unsolicited
facsimile to the Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine on
September 18, 2020, in an attempt to advertise the commercial
availability and quality of the Defendant's Vitamin D supplements
without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express invitation or
permission" to receive the Fax.
The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person to "use any telephone
facsimile machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone
facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement."
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited fax, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons have suffered damages by causing
them to lose paper and toner consumer in the printing of the
Defendant's faxes.
The D Drops Company Inc. sells Ddrops, a Vitamin D supplement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
DARE COUNTY, NC: Blackburn Appeals E.D.N.C Ruling to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Blackburn, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Blackburn, Jr.
v. Dare County, Case No. 2:20-cv-00027-FL, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Elizabeth
City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8,
2020, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for allegedly
taking of private property in violation of the 5th and the 14th
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
The Plaintiffs contend that they and other similarly situated
non-resident property owners have suffered damage by the temporary
complete taking of their property as they have lost the fair market
rental value and value of use of property by governmental
regulations for 45 days.
On March 16, 2020, Dare County declared a state of emergency due to
unprecedented public health posed by COVID-19 as it has a right to
do. On that same day, the Defendants, through the Chairman of the
Dare County Board of Commissioners, imposed an additional
restriction prohibiting the entry of all non-resident property
owners into Dare County and made the entry of non-resident property
owners a Class II misdemeanor.
The Plaintiffs are non-resident owners of real property in Dare
County, North Carolina.
The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Blackburn, Jr. v. Dare
County, Case No. 20-2056, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on November 12, 2020; and
-- Response Brief is due on December 11, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH E. BLACKBURN, JR. and LINDA C.
BLACKBURN, all similarly situated individuals are represented by:
Corey A. Finn, Esq.
Stuart W. Yeoman, Esq.
FINN & YEOMAN
401 West Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 641-4765
E-mail: corey@fyattorneys.com
wade@fyattorneys.com
- and -
Lloyd Clifton Smith, III, Esq.
Lloyd Clifton Smith, Jr., Esq.
PRITCHETT & BURCH PLLC
101 Lawyers Lane P. O. Drawer 100
Windsor, NC 27983
Telephone: (252) 794-4081
E-mail: lcs3@pb-attorneys.com
lsmith@pb-attorneys.com
Defendants-Appellees DARE COUNTY, TOWN OF NAGS HEAD, TOWN OF DUCK,
TOWN OF KILL DEVIL HILLS, TOWN OF MANTEO, TOWN OF KITTY HAWK, and
TOWN OF SOUTHERN SHORES are represented by:
Brian Florencio Castro, Esq.
Christopher J. Geis, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
1 West 4th Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 747-6635
E-mail: brian.castro@wbd-us.com
chris.geis@wbd-us.com
- and -
Norwood Pitt Blanchard, III, Esq.
Clay Allen Collier, Esq.
CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC
5002 Randall Parkway
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 762-9711
E-mail: norwood@cmclawfirm.com
clayc@cmclawfirm.com
DEL TACO LLC: Faces Cabral Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAINA CABRAL AND VANESSA 20STCV36305 LOZANO, as "aggrieved
employees" on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved
employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of
2004 v. DEL TACO LLC, a California limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV36305 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission Order No. 5-2001.
The Plaintiffs bring the representative action asserting claims
based on the Defendants' alleged (1) failure to provide all rest
breaks and meal periods; (2) failure to pay all wages for all hours
worked at the correct rates of pay; (3) failure to indemnify for
necessary work-related expenditures; (4) failure to pay all split
shift premium wages; (5) unlawful deductions from employees' wages;
(6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) failure to
provide accurate written wage statements; and (8) failure to timely
pay wages upon termination of employment.
Plaintiff Cabral was hired by the Defendants on September 9, 2016,
until October 29, 2019, to work as a non-exempt, hourly shift
supervisor at a restaurant in Monrovia, California. Plaintiff
Lozano was hired by the Defendants in November 2016 until May 28,
2020, to work as a non-exempt cashier at one of the Defendants'
restaurants in Perris, California.
Del Taco LLC is an American fast food restaurant chain, which
specializes in American-style Mexican cuisine, as well as American
foods, such as burgers, fries, and shakes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
Carl Kaplan, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
carl@spivaklaw.com
DENVER, CO: Faces DHOL Class Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denver, Colorado et
al. The case is styled as Denver Homeless Out Loud; Charles Davis;
Michael Lamb; Sharron Meitzen; Rick Meitzen, Jr.; Tomasa Dogtrail;
Steve Olsen; Gregory Costigan; Sean Martinez; Lisa Masaro;
Nathaniel Warner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; v. Denver, Colorado; Mike Cody Lieutenant; Michael
Hancock, Mayor; Tony Martinez, Sergeant; Jared Polis, Governor;
Jared (I) S. Polis, Governor; Bob McDonald; Murphy Robinson; Murphy
(I) Robinson; Kristin Bronson; Kristin (I) Bronson; Environmental
Hazmat Services; A. Martinez, Sergeant; Conover, Sergeant; FNU M.
Moore, Sergeant; FNU, T. Phuvhapaisalkij, Officer; R. Monthathong,
Officer; C. Randall, Officer; D. Hunter, Officer; in their
individual/official capacity; R. Manzanares; T. Wilson; J. Udland;
D. Martinez; Sam Wallace; James Harvey; Darren Ulrich; Mallory
Lutkin; F/N/U Gasparovic; F/N/U Burt; F/N/U Dirnberger; F/N/U Weil;
F/N/U Caldwell; F/N/U Rae; F/N/U Daugherty; F/N/U Sargenti; F/N/U
Dinkel; F/N/U Kline; F/N/U Davey; F/N/U Harrington; F/N/U Gonzales;
F/N/U Sanchez; F/N/U Williams; F/N/U Cleveland; F/N/U Crenshaw;
F/N/U Voss; F/N/U Cheema; F/N/U Hardy; F/N/U Keeling; F/N/U Pratt;
F/N/U Trujillo; F/N/U Simcox; F/N/U McCall; F/N/U Jewett; F/N/U
Novy; F/N/U Ross; F/N/U Barkley; F/N/U Larreau; F/N/U Major; F/N/U
Strickland; F/N/U Hood; and John and Janes Boes 1-75, John and
Janes Does 1-75, John and Janes Foes 1-75, John and Janes Joes
1-75, John and Janes Loes 1-75, John and Janes Moes 1-75; in their
individual capacities; Case No. 1:20-cv-02985 (D. Colo., Oct. 5,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Civil Rights
Act.
Denver, the capital of Colorado, is an American metropolis dating
to the Old West era.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darold W. Killmer, Esq.
David A. Lane, Esq.
Reid Robertson Allison, Esq.
Andrew Joseph McNulty, Esq.
KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 571-1000
Fax: (303) 571-1001
Email: dkillmer@kln-law.com
dlane@kln-law.com
rallison@kln-law.com
amcnulty@kln-law.com
DISCOVER BANK: Perez Civil Rights Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Iliana Perez, Flavio Guzman Magana,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Discover Bank, Case No. 20CIV03045, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Oct. 2, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-06896 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Discover Financial Services is an American financial services
company that owns and operates Discover Bank, which offers checking
and savings accounts, personal loans, home equity loans, student
loans and credit cards. It also owns and operates the Discover and
Pulse networks, and owns Diners Club International.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Arjun P. Rao, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
2029 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
Phone: (310) 556-5800
Fax: (310) 556-5959
Email: arao@stroock.com
DOCTOR LIMON: Faces Lucius Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. DOCTOR LIMON CORP. d/b/a DR. LIMON CEVICHE BAR,
Case No. 1:20-cv-23989-RNS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2020), is brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
disabled persons for the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is legally blind, who uses VoiceOver screen reader
software in order to access app content. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant's app does not meet the WCAG 2.1 A level of
accessibility because it has access barriers which denied her the
full use and enjoyment of the goods and services despite her
attempts to patronize the Defendant's app.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as the result of
the discriminatory conditions present at the Defendant's app.
Doctor Limon Corp. owns, operates and maintains a restaurant called
Dr. Limon Ceviche Bar, which sells food and other goods to the
public and offers those items to the public through its app.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: 305-351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
DONALD J. TRUMP: Renewed Motion for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits filed against DONALD J. TRUMP, et
al., the Gomez and Aker Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
granting their renewed motion for class certification.
The Gomez Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a Diversity Visa Subclass (DV-2020 subclass),
which includes:
"all individuals who have been selected to receive an
immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State's
FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received
their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when
Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by
Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect";
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Nakamura, Koirala, Kinteh,
Karpes, Iwundu, and Bushati as class representatives;
3. appointing as class counsel, Innovation Law Lab, Justice
Action Center, and the Law Office of Laboni A. Hoq.
The Gomez Plaintiffs make this renewed request based on information
they have learned from putative DV-2020 subclass members since the
Court issued its September 4 Memorandum Opinion and Order, granting
substantive injunctive relief to all DV-2020 Selectees but denying
without prejudice the Gomez Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification for the DV-2020 subclass.
The Aker Plaintiffs also renew their request for the Court to:
1. certify their proposed class;
2. appoint Plaintiffs Afsin Aker, Mustafa Dogan Eker,
Dilara Avadin, Emre Akin, Erdal Tarman, Mustafa Madazli,
and Utkirbek Abdjumominov and family as class
representatives; and
3. appointing the Aker Plaintiffs counsel as class counsel.
The two lawsuits are captioned as:
"DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01419-APM (D.C.)"; and
"AFSIN AKER, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01926 (D.C.)."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jxmUfP at no
extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Gomez Plaintiffs are:
Jesse M. Bless, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (781) 704-3897
E-mail: jbless@aila.org
- and -
Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
Esther H. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE ACTION CENTER
P.O. Box 27280
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 316-0944
E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org
esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
- and -
Nadia H Dahab, Esq.
Stephen W. Manning, Esq.
Nadia Dahab, Esq.
Jordan Cunnings, Esq.
Tess Hellgren, Esq.
INNOVATION LAW LAB
333 SW Fifth Avenue No. 200
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 241-0035
E-mail: stephen@innovationlawlab.org
nadia@innovationlawlab.org
jordan@innovationlawlab.org
tess@innovationlawlab.org
- and -
Laboni A. Hoq, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ
Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney
P.O. Box 753
South Pasadena, CA 91030
E-mail: laboni@hoqlaw.com
Counsel for the Aker Plaintiffs are:
Greg Siskind, Esq.
SISKIND SUSSER PC
1028 Oakhaven Rd.
Memphis, TN 39118
- and -
Jeff D. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & HALL P.C.
12203 East Second Avenue
Aurora, CO 80011
- and -
Charles H. Kuck, Esq.
Phillip C. Kuck, Esq.
Danielle M. Claffey
KUCK BAXTER IMMIGRATION, LLC
365 Northridge Rd, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: 404.816.8611
E-mail: ckuck@immigration.net
EARLY AUTUMN: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Early Autumn, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Early Autumn, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08299 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Early Autumn has manufacturing Clothing, footwear and
headgear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Eastman
Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK) between July
27, 2020 and August 11, 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 Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Kodak 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 failed to disclose that the Company had granted
Defendant Continenza and several other Company insiders millions of
dollars' worth of stock options, immediately prior to the Company
publicly disclosing that it had received a $765 million loan from
the DFC to produce drugs to treat COVID-19, which Defendants knew
would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the
deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this
material non-public information, Defendant Continenza and other
Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's
shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that
they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.
On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported new details of the
"unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Continenza. The article
stated that according to "a person familiar with the arrangement,"
the option award "occurred because of an understanding" between
Continenza and Kodak's Board of Directors "that had previously
neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public."
Further, "[t]he decision to grant Continenza options was never
formalized or made into a binding agreement, which is why it was
not disclosed previously." Concurrently market observers
questioned why Kodak, historically a technology company, had been
selected for a DPA loan related to pharmaceutical supplies over
companies with more experience in the pharmaceutical industry.
In reaction to this news, Kodak's stock price plummeted $6.91 per
share to close at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020 - a decline of
over 34% per share.
On August 5, 2020, several Congressional committees sent a joint
letter to Defendant Continenza seeking documents about the loan,
insider trading, and stock options for their review of "DFC's
decision to award this loan to Kodak despite your company's lack of
pharmaceutical experience and the windfall gained by you and other
company executives as a result of this loan" which raised
"questions that must be thoroughly examined." The committees also
sent a document request to the DFC's Chief Executive Officer on the
same day, inquiring about the Kodak loan, which the letter noted
was "an organization that was on the brink of failure in 2012 and
was unsuccessful in its previous foray into pharmaceutical
manufacturing."
On August 7, 2020, after the market closed, the DFC announced, "on
July 28, we signed a Letter of Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent
allegations of wrongdoing raise serious concerns. We will not
proceed any further unless these allegations are cleared."
On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%,
from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on
August 10, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 13, 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 Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/eastmankodakcompany-kodk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-290/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]
EVERFRESH ENDEAVORS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Lucius Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIIUS v. EVERFRESH ENDEAVORS, LLC d/b/a LIME FRESH MEXICAN
GRILL, Case No. 1:20-cv-23986-CMA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2020), is
brought behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
disabled persons against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses VoiceOver screen reader
software in order to access app content. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant's app does not meet the WCAG 2.1 A level of
accessibility because it has access barriers which denied her the
full use and enjoyment of the goods and services despite her
attempts to patronize the Defendant's app.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as the result of
the discriminatory conditions present at the Defendant's app.
Everfresh Endeavors, LLC owns, operates and maintains a restaurant
called Lime Fresh Mexican Grill, which sells food and other goods
to the public and offers those items through its app.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: 305-351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
FARADAY LABS: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faraday Labs Inc. The
case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Faraday Labs Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08188 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Faraday Laboratories Inc. was founded in 1967. The Company's line
of business includes clinical laboratory testing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Fastly, Inc., Progenity,
Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.
Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)
Class Period: May 6, 2020 to August 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020
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."
On August 5, 2020, 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 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, or approximately
17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to
close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.
Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, 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: (1) that
Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which
was known to have serious security risks and was under intense
scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that
Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse
actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S.
government; and (3) that, as a result, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Fastly securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/FSLY
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)
Class Period: May 6, 2020 to August 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020
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."
On August 5, 2020, 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 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, or approximately
17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to
close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.
Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, 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: (1) that
Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which
was known to have serious security risks and was under intense
scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that
Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse
actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S.
government; and (3) that, as a result, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Fastly securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/FSLY
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Court Certifies Loan Borrowers Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as D'ALAN E. BAUGH, et al., v.
THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 1:17-cv-01735-SAG (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order:
1. certifying a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure as follows:
"all individuals in the United States who were borrowers
on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section
2602) originated or brokered by The Federal Savings Bank
for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as
identified in Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between January
1, 2009 and May 22, 2013."
Exempted from this class is any person who, during the
period of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2014, was
an employee, officer, member and/or agent of The Federal
Savings Bank, Genuine Title LLC and/or Competitive
Advantage Media Group, LLC, Brandon Glickstein, Inc.,
and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC.";
2. appointing the Plaintiff D'Alan E. Baugh as Class
Representative;
3. appointing Melissa English and Michael Smith, of Smith
Gildea & Schmidt LLC, and Timothy Maloney and Veronica
Nannis, of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., as Class
Counsel; and
4. directing the parties to confer and submit to the Court a
proposed form of Notice to the Class no later than 30 days
from the entry of this Order.
The Federal Savings Bank is a veteran-owned bank, with a focus on
VA loans and FHA loans for military and first time home buyers.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nh1QMT at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Soy-Based Parts Result to Wiring Damages, Dass Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIV DASS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and LINCOLN MOTOR COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-04458-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020), seeks redress on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class Members for damage resulting
from the Defendants' inclusion of soy-based materials in certain of
their vehicles' wiring insulation, wiring coating and/or other
parts and components.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants incorporate soy-based
ingredients in the wiring in vehicles' electrical wiring systems
that bait rodents to the vehicles and entices these pests to chew
through, eat, or otherwise damage and compromise the wiring. The
defect causes damage to the vehicles' electrical and other
operational systems and/or these systems cease to function, leaving
the vehicles partially or completely inoperable. The defect can
also cause major safety hazards and makes the vehicles inherently
dangerous to drive, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks recovery for monetary and equitable relief for
the Defendants' failure to implement or honor the terms of its
warranty, breaches of implied warranties, unjust enrichment,
restitution, and declaratory relief and for placing drivers of
vehicles at safety risks.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker that has
its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.
Lincoln Motor Company is an authorized Ford/Lincoln dealer located
in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anil Dass, Esq.
23-22 Steinway Street
Astoria, NY 11105
Telephone: (718) 255-5934
E-mail: anildass@earthlink.net
FRASER FINANCIAL: Loyhayem Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jonathan Loyhayem filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled Jonathan Loyhayem v. Fraser
Financial and Insurance, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00894-MWF-JEM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Jonathan Loyhayem v. Fraser
Financial and Insurance, et al., Case No. 20-56014, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Jonathan Loyhayem's opening brief is due on
November 30, 2020;
-- Appellees Does, Fraser Financial and Insurance Services,
Inc. and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company's
answering brief is due on December 29, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JONATHAN LOYHAYEM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
Defendants-Appellees FRASER FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
and MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented
by:
Betty Thi Huynh, Esq.
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
17383 West Sunset Boulevard
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181
Telephone: (310) 454-5900
E-mail: betthuynh@gmail.com
- and -
Laura A. Stoll, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 426-2500
E-mail: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Brooks Russell Brown, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 346-4000
E-mail: bbrown@goodwinlaw.com
GOLF WAREHOUSE: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Golf Warehouse,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Golf Warehouse, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08298 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Golf Warehouse, LLC, provides selection of golf products
through its online golf catalog.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
GREEN GRASS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Romero Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GREEN GRASS FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08301
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The complaint alleges that during the Plaintiff's visits to the Web
site, http://www.nutpods.com/,the last occurring in September
2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full
and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to
the public and made available to the public and that denied him the
full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Web
site.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's actions constitute
willful intentional discrimination, thus, he seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that its Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Green Grass Foods, Inc., is a dairy free coffee creamer
manufacturer and retail company, and owns and operates the Web
site, offering features, which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services and which the Company ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
HAI CANG SEAFOOD: Cabrera Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Osorio Cabrera, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hai Cang Seafood Corp., Vicky Lou
and Johnny Truong, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07328 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 9, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a fish market, located at 71
Mulberry Street, New York, New York 10013, under the names "Hai
Cang Sea Food" and/or "Hai Cang Trading" where Cabrera was employed
as a food preparer, delivery worker, stock worker and cleaner. He
claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week
without overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek
and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
HARBORSIDE INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Harborside Inc. (OTC: HSDEF)
between July 2, 2019 and August 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Harborside investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Harborside class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1897.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Harborside had undisclosed material weaknesses and
insufficient financial controls; (2) Harborside's previously issued
financial statements were false and unreliable; (3) Harborside's
earlier reported financial statements would need restatement; (4)
as a result of the foregoing and subsequent reporting delays,
Harborside's Canadian stock trading would be suspended; (5)
Harborside downplayed the negative impacts of errors and delays
regarding its financial statements; and (6) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
9, 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-1897.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
HAYWARD SISTERS: Davila Challenges Illegal Employment Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSELUIS DA VILA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as a private attorney general v. HAYWARD
SISTERS HOSPITAL dba ST. ROSE HOSPITAL, a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20074747 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., Sept. 22, 2020), challenges the Defendants' systemic
illegal employment practices against individuals who work for them
resulting in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
accurate, itemized wage statements to him and other non-exempt
employees, who were paid shift differential wages. Specifically,
whenever shift differential wages are paid, Mr. Da Vila asserts
that the Defendants fail to itemize the accurate total hours worked
on wage statements furnished to him and other non-exempt employees.
Moreover, when the hours shown on the wage statements are added up,
the total do not appear to add up to the actual total hours worked,
the suit says.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in 2008 as a
phlebotomist.
Hayward Sisters Hospital is an independent, nonprofit community
hospital located in Hayward, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Simon L. Yang, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
sly@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
HEAD N' HOME: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Delacruz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HEAD N' HOME INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-8277
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the
Web site, https://americanhatmakers.com/, the last occurring in
October 2020, in an attempt to purchase a product from the
Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public and that denied him
the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Web site.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Head N' Home Inc. operates the American Hat Makers online retail
store across the United States. The Company's Web site provides
consumers with access to an array of goods including information
about purchasing hats, hat care products, accessories and other
products available online for purchase, and to ascertain
information relating to pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and
return and privacy policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
HIMS INC: Delacruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hims, Inc. The case
is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, On Behalf Of Himself And All Other
Persons Similarly Situated v. Hims, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08272
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hims, Inc., is a telemedicine company that operates Hims and Hers,
which sell men's and women's personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
ICONIC GROUP: Faces Fontana TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
STEFANO FONTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ICONIC GROUP, INC. d/b/a GRADIMAGES, Case No.
CACE-20-016056 (Fla. Cir., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful conduct in violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on December
13, 2019, and January 2, 2020, in an attempt to promote and solicit
its services. The Defendant allegedly used an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) in transmitting its messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, which has been registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry since August 2, 2005.
The Plaintiff also contends that he never provide the Defendant
with his prior express written consent to be contacted using an
ATDS or a "short code," a shortened phone number, which can only be
sent using a computer that enabled the Defendant to send SMS text
messages en masse.
Iconic Group, Inc., d/b/a Gradimages, provides professional event
photography services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
IKEA NORTH: Wilson Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KYREE WILSON, RHONDA GUERRERO, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, an unknown business
entity; IKEA US RETAIL LLC, an unknown business entity; IKEA
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV32154, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on October 2, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-09075 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period and rest period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, not timely paid final wages, not
timely paid wages during employment, noncompliant wage statements,
failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
IKEA North America Services, LLC, is a furniture company located in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. IKEA US Retail LLC is a furniture
company based in Columbus, Ohio. IKEA Distribution Services Inc. is
a company that provides home furnishing in Paramus, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletree.com
sarah.zenewicz@ogletree.com
INDIANA BOTANIC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indiana Botanic
Gardens Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Indiana Botanic
Gardens Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08265 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Indiana Botanic Gardens, Inc., offers nutritional supplements,
vitamins, and herbs. The Company offers acai berry, amino acids,
beauty care, immune support, herbal tea, and other associated
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07160 on behalf of shareholders of Jernigan Capital,
Inc. ("Jernigan" or the "Company") (NYSE:JCAP) who have been harmed
by Jernigan's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company with NexPoint Advisors, L.P. (the "Proposed
Transaction").
On August 3, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger under which Jernigan shareholders
stand to receive $17.30 in cash for each share of Jernigan stock
they own.
The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information
concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on
which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as
fair to Jernigan shareholders.
If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/JCAP.
Take Action
Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292
(212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]
JOHNNIE-O INC: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnnie-O, Inc. The
case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Johnnie-O, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07828-PGG-DCF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. udge
Paul G. Gardephe.
Johnnie-O, Inc., is located in California and is part of the
clothing stores industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
KFORCE INC: Gofton Sues Over Improper Overtime Pay for Recruiters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE GOFTON and ADAM KIMBREL, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. KFORCE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04886 (E.D.
Pa., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated talent acquisition
specialists overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a week.
Plaintiff Hope Gofton worked for the Defendant as a talent
acquisition specialist from July 2018 to December 2019. Plaintiff
Adam Kimbrel worked for the Defendant as a talent acquisition
specialist from January 2018 until August 2019.
Kforce, Inc., is a professional staffing agency based in Tampa,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
kaburgy@nicholllaw.com
- and –
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and –
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
KIA MOTORS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Kondash Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM KONDASHBH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. KIA MOTORS
AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Case No.
1:15-cv-00506-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland
entered an order:
1. denying Kondash's Motion to Certify Class consisting of:
"all persons and entities who purchased or leased a "Class
Vehicle" in Ohio. "Class Vehicles" include the following
Kia models equipped with PSRs: 2011-2015 Sorento, 2011-
2015 Sportage, 2011-2015 Optima (including hybrid), and
the 2014-2015 Cadenza";
2. granting Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert
Hannemann;
3. granting Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert
Read;
4. denying as moot Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Expert Gaskin;
5. denying as moot Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Expert Weir; and
6. denying as moot Kondash's Motion to Exclude the Testimony
of Expert Strombom.
The Court said, "Kondash has failed to demonstrate that the most
important factual question in this case -- whether the Class
Vehicles have a common defect -- is capable of class-wide
resolution. As courts across the country have routinely found when
faced with similar circumstances, this Court finds that Kondash has
failed to meet his burden of 'affirmatively demonstrating' that
common questions predominate over individual issues. In sum,
without the expert testimony of Hannemann and Read, there is no
evidence of a class-wide defect. And without evidence of a
class-wide defect, there is nothing that ties the class together in
order to satisfy predominance."
Kondash seeks to certify this class action based on an alleged
common design defect of certain Kia vehicles' panoramic sunroofs
(PSRs). He alleges this "systematic" design defect causes Kia PSRs
to spontaneously shatter. Kondash contends that certifying this
class action is appropriate because "classwide proof can speak to
the main issues in this case: that there's a defect, that it's
dangerous, and that Kia continued to manufacture and sell the
vehicles while concealing the danger from drivers."
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Louisiana
Redhibition Law, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
In July 2015, while driving his 2012 Kia Optima on the highway with
his wife, the Kondash suddenly heard a loud noise as his panoramic
sunroof burst, causing glass to rain into his car. The wind whipped
the sunshade awning around and dumped broken glass over Kondash and
his wife, causing small cuts and glass splinters to their arms and
legs. As it turns out, Kondash was not the only Kia owner who
experienced their panoramic sunroof to spontaneously shatter.
Shortly thereafter, Kondash filed this prospective class action
lawsuit against Kia.
Kia Motors operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers
passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers,
sedans, vans, and cargo trucks.
A copy of the Court's Order denying class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33w4xSL at no
extra charge.[CC]
LATINO CONCEPTS: Blind Users Can't Access Mobile App, Gomez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ v. LATINO CONCEPTS LLC d/b/a COYO TACO, Case No.
1:20-cv-23959-UU (S.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for
offering and maintaining a mobile application that is not fully
accessible and independently usable by visually impaired
consumers.
The Plaintiff is permanently blind and uses screen reader software
in order to access the Internet and read mobile app content. He
alleges that despite his several attempts to use and navigate the
Defendant's App, he was denied the full use and enjoyment of the
facilities, goods and services available on the app due to the
access barriers he has encountered, which deprive him of
information to the physical brick-and-mortar public place of
accommodation.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant allegedly failed to comply
with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which provide widely accepted
guidelines for making apps accessible to individuals with
disabilities and compatible with screen reader software.
Latino Concepts LLC, d/b/a Coyo Taco, operates and maintains brick
and mortar retail stores in the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alberto R. Leal, Esq.
THE LEGAL LAW FIRM, P.A.
8927 Hypoluxo Rd., #157
Lake Worth, FL 33463
Tel: 561-237-2741
Fax: 561-237-2741
E-mail: al@thelealfirm.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gaston Appeals Ruling in DPPA Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leonard Gaston, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Leonard Gaston v. LexisNexis
Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00009-KDB-DCK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at
Statesville.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 9,
2020, the Plaintiffs asked the Court for an order granting class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(3).
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants obtained Putative Class
Representatives' and Class Members' Personal Information from Motor
Vehicle Records ("MVRs") maintained by the State Motor Vehicle
Department, for purposes that violate the Drivers Privacy
Protection Act, including processing, re-disclosing, reselling
personal information.
The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Gaston v. LexisNexis
Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 20-2060, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LEONARD GASTON, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals, and DELORIS GASTON, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:
Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq.
David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street P. O. Box 7379
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
Defendants-Appellees LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., a Georgia
Corporation, and POLICEREPORTS.US, LLC, a North Carolina Limited
Liability Company, are represented by:
Misha Tseytlin, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS, LLP
227 West Monroe
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 759-5947
E-mail: misha.tseytlin@troutman.com
LULU & GEORGIA INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Lulu & Georgia, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself, and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lulu & Georgia, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08109 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020).
Lulu & Georgia is a massive, online home decor shopping site and
brainchild of Sara Sugarman.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael LaBollita , Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
LUMONDI INC: Biddick Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumondi, Inc. The
case is styled as Scott Biddick, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lumondi, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 7:20-cv-08091-NSR (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed over Diversity-Property Damage/Product Liability.
Lumondi, Inc. is located in New York, NY, United States and is part
of the Jewelry Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP
445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Tel: (914) 298-3281
Fax: (845) 562-3492
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
LYFT INC: Keiner Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit re: Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff Rick Keiner will
move the Court on December 17, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)
comprised of:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Lyft issued and traceable to
the IPO Registration Statement."
Excluded from the Class are defendants and their families,
the officers, directors and affiliates of defendants, at
all relevant times, members of their immediate families
and their legal representatives, heir, successors or
assigns, any entity in which defendants have or had a
controlling interest and any entity that underwrote the
Lyft IPO including any officer, director or affiliate of
any Lyft IPO underwriter.;
2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Block & Leviton LLP as Class Counsel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
This action charges that Lyft's IPO Registration Statement
contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
disclose material facts required to be stated therein. Lyft sold
32.5 million shares of common stock to public investors at $72 per
share, for total proceeds of $2.34 billion. The IPO was declared
effective by the SEC on March 28, 2019 and Lyft's shares were sold
to investors that day and began to trade on the NASDAQ stock
exchange.
Lyft develops, markets, and operates a mobile app, offering
vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system,
and food delivery.
A copy of the the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ldE0Q9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Rick Keiner and the Class are:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
- and -
Whitney E. Street, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 968-1852
E-mail: whitney@blockleviton.com
MANHATTAN MEDICAL: Delacruz Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Medical
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, On Behalf
Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Manhattan
Medical Associates LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08284 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Manhattan Medical Associates is an erectile dysfunction (ED)
treatment facility that uses FDA-approved Sound Wave Therapy in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
MARCO POLO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Garcia Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO GARCIA and GIOVANNY BELLO, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. MARCO POLO CATERERS, INC.
d/b/a TOCQUEVILLE, MARCO MOREIRA and JO ANN MAKOVITZKY, Case No.
1:20-cv-08278 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
failure to provide proper wages to the Plaintiffs and others
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them proper
compensation for all hours worked, failed to pay proper overtime,
failed to pay proper wages, including those due to time shaving,
failed to provide them with proper wage statements with every
payment of wages, and failed to properly provide wage notices at
date of hiring and annually, per requirements of the FLSA and the
NYLL.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants from 2005 to March
2020 as a cook. Plaintiff Bello was employed by the Defendants from
September 2019 to March 2020 as a food runner.
Marco Polo Caterers Inc. is a catering company based in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
MARIE BURGOS DESIGN: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Marie Burgos Design, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself, and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marie Burgos Design, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08116 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020).
Marie Burgos Design, Inc. is an interior designer in New York City,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
- and -
Michael LaBollita , Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
MISSION NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gallardo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCA GALLARDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MISSION NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, INC.; and DOES
1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC-20-586532 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Sept. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc., operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers various programs and services
such as youth and children's service, family resource center, and
workforce development.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
MOMENTA PHARMA: Post Slams Sale to J&J for Lack of Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Post, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jane F.
Barlow, Bruce Downey, Georges Gemayel, Steven C. Gilman, Donna Roy
Grogan, Jose-Carlos Gutierrez-Ramos, Elizabeth Stoner, Craig A.
Wheeler, Johnson & Johnson and Vigor Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-01205 (D. Del. September 9, 2020), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Johnson & Johnson and Vigor Sub,
Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Vigor Sub will
purchase all of Momenta's outstanding common stock for $52.50 per
share in cash.
The complaint alleges that the solicitation statement with respect
to the proposed transaction fails to disclose all line items used
to calculate EBIT and unlevered free cash flow and a reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics and omitted the analyses performed
by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Centerview Partners LLC.
Momenta is a biotechnology company focusing on discovering and
developing novel biologic therapeutics to treat rare
immune-mediated diseases and advancing its late stage biosimilars.
Post owns Momenta common units. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Massre Case Settlement Has Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Massre v. Mullooly, Jeffrey,
Rooney & Flynn LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order:
1. adopting Magistrate Judge Scanlon's thorough and well-
reasoned Report & Recommendation; and
2. granting the parties' joint motion to certify class for
preliminary approval.
3. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement;
4. appointing Ari Marcus, Esq. and Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. of
Marcus & Zelman, LLC, as Class Counsel;
5. appointing Plaintiff Efrat Massre as the representative of
the settlement Class; and
6. granting approval and distribution of the proposed notice,
in the form as amended by the Court to the Class.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Scanlon's thorough and
well-reasoned Report & Recommendation entered on August 28, 2020.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Mullooly & Jeffrey is a law firm operating out of Syosset, New York
that engages in debt collection.[CC]
NCAA: Walden Class Suit Moved From M.D. Georgia to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT E. WALDEN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00158, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 2,
2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05861 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's negligence, breach of express
contract, and fraudulent concealment by failing to develop and
implement adequate guidelines and procedures to protect Auburn
University football players from the long-term dangers of traumatic
brain injuries (TBIs) and concealing information about the risks of
TBIs.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an athletics
association of colleges and universities in the United States, with
its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington
Street, in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cale H. Conley, Esq.
CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
4200 Northside Parkway
Building 1, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 467-1155
E-mail: cale@conleygriggs.com
- and –
Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
Alex Barlow, Esq.
James B. Hartle, Esq.
SHRADER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 782-0000
Facsimile: (713) 571-9605
E-mail: gene@shraderlaw.com
Barlow@shraderlaw.com
Jim@shraderlaw.com
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Omigie in Gulino Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated September 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-3364, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Benjamin Omigie is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NIKOLA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on September 15, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona against Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is March 3, 2020 through September 15, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-nikola-corporation/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Nikola
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than November 16, 2020 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Kaskela Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) on behalf of investors who purchased
Nikola's securities between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who purchased Nikola's securities during the Class Period
and suffered an investment loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(484) 258 – 1585, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to
discuss this action and their legal rights and options. Additional
information about this action may also be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/nikola-corporation/.
As detailed in the complaint, on September 10, 2020, Hindenburg
Research published a report describing, among other things, how:
(i) the Company claims to design key components in house, but they
appear to simply be buying or licensing them from third-parties;
(ii) the Company has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a spokesman for
Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company that formerly
partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and hydrogen fuel
cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test" video for its
Nikola Two; (v) some of Nikola's team, including Defendant Milton,
are not experts and do not have relevant experience; and (vi)
Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.
Following this news, shares of Nikola's stock fell $10.24 per share
over two trading days, or 24% in value, to close at $32.13 per
share on September 11, 2020.
Subsequently, on September 14, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission "is examining Nikola Corp.
to assess the merits of a short-seller's allegations that the
electric-truck maker deceived investors about its business
prospects.
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Nikola's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.
Nikola X investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this
opportunity to participate in the action.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Tel No: (484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Sanchez Balks at Sale of Faulty Controllers
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ SANCHEZ and M.S., a minor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-06929-JCS (N.D. Cal., Oct. 5, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's unlawful conduct of selling defective Nintendo's
Joy-Con controllers, in violation of various state and federal
laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants include two detachable
Joy-Cons upon purchase of its Nintendo Switch console. Gamers use
Joy-Cons to control an object or character in the game. Unbeknownst
to consumers, including the Plaintiffs, these controllers
experience Joy-Con drift, a defect that occurs when the joystick
stops working properly. The defect will cause on-screen characters
or the cursor to "drift" even when players are not moving the
joystick. Once the defect manifests, it progressively gets worse
until the Joy-Cons become inoperable, and consumers are forced to
buy a new pair of controllers.
The Defendant has known and had exclusive knowledge of the problem
for years, and still, has done nothing to adequately fix it or
alert consumers of its existence, the suit says. The Defendant
allegedly violated the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's False
Advertising Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the
Magnuson-Moss Act due to its conduct.
Nintendo of America, Inc., is a consumer electronics and video game
company. It develops, produces, and markets videogame software and
hardware, including the video game console Nintendo Switch and
Nintendo Switch Lite.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
NORTH DAKOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Thunderhawk Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Doug Burgum, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Cissy Thunderhawk, et al. v.
Governor Doug Burgum, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00212-DMT, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Western.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Dakota Access
Pipeline fighters filed a class action in the federal District
Court on Oct. 18, 2018, against state and county officials and
TigerSwan, the private counter-intelligence surveillance and
security company used by Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) to quash
resistance to its construction project.
Lead plaintiffs in the case are Cissy Thunderhawk and Waste Win
Young, both enrolled tribal members of Standing Rock, together with
Rev. John Floberg, the priest for St. James' Episcopal Church in
Cannon Ball, located near the oil pipeline's crossing of the
Missouri River. They allege that the Defendants' 2016-2017 road
closures on North Dakota 1806 adjacent to spirit camp mobilization
were a violation of the rights to freedom of speech, assembly,
religious exercise, travel, commerce, and the Privileges and
Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The appellate case is captioned as Cissy Thunderhawk, et al. v.
Governor Doug Burgum, et al., Case No. 20-3052, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on November 12, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellants Doug Burgum, Jack Dalrymple, Michael
Gerhardt Jr., Grant Levi, Kyle Kirchmeier and Morton County
is due on November 12, 2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Cissy Thunderhawk, On behalf of herself and
all similarly situated persons; Waste'Win Young, On behalf of
herself and all similarly situated persons; Reverend John Floberg,
On behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons; and Jose
Zhagnay, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons,
are represented by:
Bernard E. Harcourt, Esq.
Noah Smith-Drelich, Esq.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
435 W. 116th Street
New York, NY 10027-0000
Telephone: (212) 854-1997
E-mail: bharcourt@law.columbia.edu
Defendants-Appellants Governor Doug Burgum, Former Governor Jack
Dalrymple, Director Grant Levi, and Superintendent Michael
Gerhardt, Jr. are represented by:
James E. Nicolai, Esq.
Matthew A. Sagsveen, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
500 N. Ninth Street
Bismarck, ND 58501
Telephone: (701) 328-3640
NORTH DAKOTA: Morton County Appeals Ruling in Thunderhawk Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Morton County and Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Cissy
Thunderhawk, et al. v. Morton County, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00212-DMT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota, Western.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Dakota Access
Pipeline fighters filed a class action in the federal District
Court on Oct. 18, 2018, against state and county officials and
TigerSwan, the private counter-intelligence surveillance and
security company used by Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) to quash
resistance to its construction project.
Lead plaintiffs in the case are Cissy Thunderhawk and Waste Win
Young, both enrolled tribal members of Standing Rock, together with
Rev. John Floberg, the priest for St. James' Episcopal Church in
Cannon Ball, located near the oil pipeline's crossing of the
Missouri River.
They allege the defendants' 2016-2017 road closures on North Dakota
1806 adjacent to spirit camp mobilization were a violation of the
rights to freedom of speech, assembly, religious exercise, travel,
commerce, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
The appellate case is captioned as Cissy Thunderhawk, et al. v.
Morton County, et al., Case No. 20-3053, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on November 12, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellants Doug Burgum, Jack Dalrymple, Michael
Gerhardt Jr., Grant Levi, Kyle Kirchmeier and Morton County
is due on November 12, 2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Cissy Thunderhawk, on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated persons; Waste Win Young, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated persons; Reverend John Floberg,
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons; and Jose
Zhagnay, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons,
are represented by:
Bernard E. Harcourt, Esq.
Noah Smith-Drelich, Esq.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
435 W. 116th Street
New York, NY 10027-0000
Telephone: (212) 854-1997
E-mail: bharcourt@law.columbia.edu
Defendants-Appellants Morton County and Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier are
represented by:
Randall J. Bakke, Esq.
Shawn A. Grinolds, Esq.
BAKKE & GRINOLDS
300 W. Century Avenue P.O. Box 4247
Bismarck, ND 58502-4247
Telephone: (701) 751-8188
NORWEGIAN AIR: Daversa-Evdyriadis Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis v.
Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00767-JGB-SP,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 5, 2020,
the lawsuit seeks a full cash refund, an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract.
Norwegian focuses heavily on travel between the United States and
Europe, carrying over two million passengers. Its business was
disrupted as a result of the recent travel ban between the United
States and Europe due to the COVID19 pandemic.
Ms. Daversa-Evdyriadis was scheduled to fly with Norwegian on a
departing flight from Los Angeles to Paris, and on a returning
flight from Berlin to Los Angeles. It was cancelled by Norwegian
due to the coronavirus travel ban so she requested a refund. She
alleged that Norwegian is only offering an opportunity to get
credit for a future flight and not refunds.
The appellate case is captioned as Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis v.
Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, et al., Case No. 20-56013, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis' opening brief is due
on November 30, 2020;
-- Appellees Kiwi.com, Inc. and Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA's
answering brief is due on December 29, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHERISH DAVERSA-EVDYRIADIS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
Defendants-Appellees NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA and KIWI.COM, INC.,
DBA Kiwi.com USA, Inc., are represented by:
Jacob R. Sorensen, Esq.
John Michael Grenfell, Esq.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 983-1893
E-mail: jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com
john.grenfell@pillsburylaw.com
- and -
Michael Paul Acain, Esq.
MCKAY, DE LORIMIER & ACAIN
3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 603
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 386-6900
E-mail: macain@mbglaw.com
ONESTAFF MEDICAL: Madison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA MADISON, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. ONESTAFF MEDICAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-01384-AWI-JLT (E.D.
Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California
Labor Code, and the California Business & Professions Code.
The Plaintiff, who has worked a 14-week travel assignment for
OneStaff at Mercy Hospitals of Bakersfield in 2019, alleges that
her hourly compensation results in a regular rate of $73.56 per
non-overtime hour worked when each of the components of it is
summed. The Plaintiff contends that the value of her per diem,
housing allowance, and travel allowance were not included by the
Defendants when calculating her overtime, thereby, failing to pay
her lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for all the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
OneStaff Medical Limited Liability Company is a staffing company
that employs non-exempt healthcare professionals for short-term
travel assignments at healthcare providers throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (626) 808-4357
Fax: (626) 921-4932
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
PANDORA JEWELRY: Faces Cota Suit Over Web Site's Access Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PANDORA JEWELRY LLC and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01951-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied her and all
others similarly situated blind or visually-impaired people full
and equal access to its website, https://www.us.pandora.net/. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's website contains access
barriers that hinder blind consumers to fully use and enjoy the
products and services offered by the Defendant to the public. These
access barriers include: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text),
or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately
vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that
contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not
be presented to the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links
go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which
results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and
screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which
causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that
image does not provide alt-text.
As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove these
access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the
website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered
to the public through it, according to the complaint.
Pandora Jewelry LLC is a company that designs, manufactures and
markets hand-finished and modern jewelry made from genuine
materials, with its headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
PANINI LA CAFE: Fails to Correctly Pay OT Wages, Martinez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR ROMULO MARTINEZ v. PANINI LA CAFE INC. d/b/a PANINI LA CAFE,
PANINI CAFE CORP d/b/a PANINI LA CAFE and JOSEPH TELLER,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-04618 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
against the Defendants for their violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
each week throughout his employment with the Defendants, but he was
not paid correctly for the overtime he worked. The Defendants paid
him a flat rate of pay, partially by check and partially by cash,
and did not provide him with any documentation as to his overtime
rate of pay in the weeks that the Defendants did not pay him
correctly.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants operated a policy of
willfully failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiff one and
one-half times the regular hourly rate of pay for work in excess of
40 hours per workweek, willfully failing to keep records required
by the FLSA, and willfully failing to provide the Plaintiff with
wage statements and wage notices.
The Plaintiff has been working for the Defendants from January 2002
through the present as a salad maker and kitchen worker at their
Panini La Cafe owned and operated by Defendant Teller.
Panini La Cafe is a restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (212) 323-6980
Fax: (212) 233-9238
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
PARMA VTA LLC: Ohio App. Affirms Denial of Stay in Gerston Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Entry and Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Judgment
denying the Defendants-Appellants' Motion for Partial Stay of
Proceedings in the case captioned KIMBERLEE A. GERTSON, TRUSTEE THE
GERSTON FAMILY TRUST, DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2002, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PARMA VTA, L.L.C., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 108823 (Ohio App.).
Defendants-Appellants Allan Robbins ("Robbins"), Leah Robbins,
Parma VTA, L.L.C., and AKMS, L.P., appeal from the trial court's
July 12, 2019 judgment denying their motion for partial stay of
proceedings. The Appellate Court affirms the Judgment.
The underlying lawsuit is a complex civil case that was initiated
in 2014 by Plaintiff-Appellee Kimberlee Gerston ("Kimberlee"),
Trustee of the Gerston Family Trust ("the Trust"), against the
Defendants, as well as appellee Parma GE 7400. Parma GE 7400
eventually became a plaintiff in this litigation.
The Trust was formed in 2002 under California laws by husband
Kenneth Gerston ("Gerston") and wife Kimberlee. Each was designated
as the primary trustee, and in the event of the death of one of
them, the survivor was to continue to act as the primary trustee.
Gerston died in 2010, and, thereafter, Kimberlee assumed the role
of primary trustee.
Prior to Gerston's death, he and Robbins had been negotiating the
purchase of the centerpiece of this litigation--commercial property
located at 7400 Broadview Road, in Parma, Ohio. Gerston and Robbins
formed companies for the sole purpose of effectuating the sale;
Gerston's company was Parma GE 7400 and Robbins' company was Parma
VTA. Robbins and Gerston entered into a Tenants-in-Common Agreement
("TIC Agreement"), which set forth the terms of the administration
of the property and the nature of the parties' relationship. Under
the TIC Agreement, Parma GE 7400 was the majority interest owner of
the property. Further, under the TIC Agreement "[a]ny controversy
arising out of or related to this Agreement or the breach thereof
or an investment in the interests shall be settled by arbitration
in Cuyahoga County * * *."
After Gerston's death, ownership of Parma GE 7400 became an issue
and Kimberlee filed this action. In Count 1 of her complaint,
Kimberlee sought a declaratory judgment declaring the Trust to be
the owner of Parma GE 7400. At the Defendants' behest, the
declaratory judgment portion of the case was bifurcated from the
rest of the case and was tried in a bench trial; the Defendants did
not mention the possibility of arbitration. Their motion requested
that the "issue of who the owner of [Parma GE 7400] be decided
first, and all claims flowing from that determination--whether
Plaintiff's or Defendants'--be bifurcated and tried separately."
At the conclusion of the bench trial on the declaratory judgment
portion of the case, the Trial Court found that the Trust was the
majority legal owner of Parma GE 7400. In June 2018, this Appellate
Court affirmed that ruling. Gerston v. Parma VTA, L.L.C., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 105572, 2018-Ohio-2185.
On remand to the Trial Court, because of this Appellate Court's
ruling, Parma GE 7400 transitioned from status as a defendant to
joining Kimberlee as a plaintiff, and on March 8, 2019, the
Plaintiffs (Kimberlee and Parma GE 7400) filed a supplemental
complaint. On April 11, 2019, the Defendants-Appellants filed an
answer, along with counterclaims, to the supplemental complaint.
The answer asserted numerous affirmative defenses, one of them
being that some of the counts of the supplemental complaint were
subject to arbitration under the TIC Agreement; it was the first
time in the five years of litigation that the Defendants mentioned
the arbitration provision.
On that same date, April 11, the Defendants also filed the motion
for partial stay of proceedings, which is the subject of this
appeal. In the motion, the Defendants contended that "Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Complaint, with the participation of newly-realigned
Plaintiff Parma GE 7400, has asserted claims which are clearly
subject to the mandatory arbitration provision contained in the
[TIC Agreement] between Plaintiff Parma GE 7400 L.L.C. and
Defendant Parma VTA L.L.C." Although not directly at issue in this
appeal, for full context it is important to note that on April 5,
2019, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration on
another matter--a "cash call" that allegedly occurred between two
of the parties--but the Defendants withdrew the motion to compel on
April 17, 2019.
The Plaintiffs filed one brief in opposition to both of the
motions--the subject motion for partial stay of proceedings and the
April 5 motion to compel arbitration on the alleged "cash call"
issue. The substance of the Plaintiffs' opposition only went to the
"cash call" matter, however.
The Trial Court summarily denied the Defendants' motion for partial
stay of proceedings without explanation. The Defendants have raised
the following sole assignment of error for the Appellate Court's
review: "The Trial Court erred in denying Defendants' Motion for
Partial Stay of Proceedings pending arbitration of five claims set
forth in Plaintiffs' Supplemental Complaint."
Conclusion
Judge Larry A. Jones, Sr., affirmed the Trial Court's Judgment.
Judge Jones ordered that the Appellees recover from the Appellants
costs herein taxed. The Appellate Court finds there were reasonable
grounds for this appeal.
Judge Jones also ruled that a special mandate be sent to the Trial
Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., CONCURS; MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., DISSENTS
WITH SEPARATE OPINION.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 25, 2020 Entry and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycc7nz8g from
Leagle.com.
Goldberg Legal Co., L.P.A. and Steven M.
Goldberg--steven@goldberglpa.com--Richardson, Patrick, Westbook &
Brickman, L.L.C. and Karl E. Novak--knovak@rpwb.com--Zagrans Law
Firm, L.L.C. and Eric H. Zagrans, 6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite
200, in Cleveland, Ohio, and Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone,
P.L.C. and Conor T.
Fitzpatrick--fitzpatrick@millercanfield.com--for Appellees.
Walter Haverfield, L.L.P., Mark I. Wallach--mwallach@walterhav.com
and John P.L. Mills, for Appellants.
PARS HEATING: Chinchilla-Gonzales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARACELY CHINCHILLA-GONZALES v. PARS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01142-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va., Sept. 29, 2020), is
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked over 40
hours a week, which includes before and after shifts, as well as at
home work-related duties. Although the Defendant captured the
regularly scheduled work hours of the Plaintiff through
manually-entered records on a work computer located in the main
office and through handwritten records manually filled out by
employees, the Plaintiff was not compensated by the Defendant for
the overtime hours she worked at one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as Office Manager from
September 2017 to July 8, 2019.
Pars Heating & Air Conditioning provides heating and air
conditioning services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reid Coploff, Esq.
Nicole D. Faut, Esq.
Sara Faulman, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: ndf@mselaborlaw.com
slf@mselaborlaw.com
PATHFACTORY CORP: Winegard Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pathfactory Corp. The
case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Pathfactory Corp., doing business as:
www.pathfactory.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04743 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PathFactory is in the industry of software development &
design.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Fax: (516) 706-6631
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
PERI & SONS: Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LORENA SUAREZ GUZMAN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. PERI & SONS FARMS OF
CALIFORNIA, LLC, A Nevada limited liability company; ROY ESTRADA,
an individual; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No.
ECU001546, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Imperial, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on October 2, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01955-BEN-JLB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, wage statement violations, and
unfair competition.
Peri & Sons Farms of California, LLC, is a farm owner and operator
based in Firebaugh, California.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony L. Hall, Esq.
SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC
6490 S. McCarran Blvd., Ste. F-46
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: (775) 785-0088
E-mail: AHall@SHJNevada.com
PRO ATHLETE INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Athlete, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Pro Athlete, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08300
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pro Athlete, Inc., powers multiple e-commerce sites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Anthony Sues in S.D. Calif. Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Pro Custom Solar, LLC. The
case is captioned as Mark Anthony, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pro Custom Solar, LLC, doing
business as: Momentum Solar, a New Jersey limited liability
company, Case No. 5:20-cv-01968-JAK-KK (C.D. Cal., Sept. 22,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt.
Pro Custom Solar, LLC, provides renewable energy services. The
Company specializes in solar designing, engineering, permitting,
installation, and activation of every systems. Momentum Solar
serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Eugene Branch, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY LOHMAN PC
28544 Old Town Front Street Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
Telephone: (866) 329-9217
Facsimile: (657) 246-1312
E-mail: jeremyb@jlohman.com
PROPULSION CONTROLS: Colter Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DARRELL COLTER, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PROPULSION CONTROLS ENGINEERING
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00030682-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on October 2, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01957-BEN-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, failure
to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at
termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair business practices.
Propulsion Controls Engineering is a full service
electro-mechanical repair and diesel repair contractor based in San
Diego, California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lois M. Kosch, Esq.
Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-mail: lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
nroysdon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
PROVIDENT TITLE: Order Sustaining Demurrer in Ukoha Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, issued an
Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Order sustaining Defendant's
Demurrer in the case captioned IFEOMA UKOHA, Plaintiff and
Appellant v. PROVIDENT TITLE COMPANY et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. B291107 (Cal. App.).
In 2005, Plaintiff Ifeoma Ukoha purchased a 17-unit apartment
building on Gibraltar Avenue in Los Angeles for $1.85 million from
a trust controlled by David Behrend. She made a $500,000 down
payment to Mr. Behrend, executed a promissory note in favor of the
trust he controlled, retained him to manage the property, and sent
payments on the note to him with the understanding that he would
forward them to the note holder. Mr. Behrend instead
misappropriated the funds, and Ms. Ukoha lost the property to
foreclosure in 2012.
In this lawsuit, she sues the title insurer (Stewart Title Guaranty
Company) and title guaranty company (Provident Title Company),
alleging they colluded with the seller to defraud her. Ms. Ukoha
essentially contends that a title insurer and title guaranty
company that know a seller has entered into prior property
transactions that resulted in lawsuits, bankruptcies and
foreclosures owes a duty to inform the buyer that the current
purchase might also be problematic.
Stewart and Provident demurred to the complaint, arguing that a
post-transaction foreclosure was not a title defect, and as a title
insurer and title insurance issuing agent they owed no duty to warn
Ms. Ukoha about the risk of her investment. The court sustained the
demurrers without leave to amend, and Ms. Ukoha appeals from the
resulting judgment.
Conclusion
Ms. Ukoha contends that Defendants' failure to inform her about
Behrend's malfeasance constituted fraud and promissory fraud. The
Appeals Court disagrees.
The Appeals Court rejects Ms. Ukoha's contention and affirmed the
Judgment. The Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.
Judge Victoria Gerrard Chaney says that Ms. Ukoha alleges nothing
giving rise to a duty owed by either Provident or Stewart to inform
her about Mr. Behrend. Nothing in the policy required such a
disclosure, nothing in the law establishes such a duty, and Ukoha
represents she had no dealings with either Provident or Stewart
until many years after the title insurance policy--which Behrend
procured on his own--was issued. A title insurance company owes the
insured no duty of disclosure outside the policy, Judge Chaney
states, citing Lee v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2010) 188
Cal.App. 4th 583, 596.
Because Ms. Ukoha alleged no viable breach of contract claim, her
claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing fails as a matter of law, Judge Chaney opines, citing
Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 1, 35-36.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycrxvcdy from Leagle.com.
Herbert Wiggins, and Herbert N. Wiggins, at 5220 Clark Ave., in
Lakewood, California, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gaglione, Dolan & Kaplan, Robert T. Dolan and Amy J. Cooper, at
11400 West Olympic Boulevard, in Los Angeles, California, for
Defendant and Respondent Provident Title Company.
Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, Eric P.
Early--eearly@earlysullivan.com--and Sophia S.
Lau--slau@earlysullivan.com--for Defendant and Respondent Stewart
Title Guaranty Company.
REAL SIMPLE: Fagerstrom Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIA FAGERSTROM; JEFFRE GIBSON; STEVE MCELHENY; and JORDAN RUSSELL,
individually and each on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown v. REAL SIMPLE INC. (d/b/a BOURBON ON
DIVISION) & JUN LIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05908 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees appropriate
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders and
servers at Bourbon on Division in Chicago, Illinois, at any time
between February 2018 and August 2019.
Real Simple Inc. is an owner and operator of a bar, restaurant, and
live music venue under the name Bourbon on Division, located at
2050 West Division Street in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard J. Zito, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD J. ZITO LLC
200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 883-5298
E-mail: rich@zitolawchicago.com
REFRESHED ENTERPRISE: Faces Doe Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN AV DOE by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Yelena Vdovich v.
REFRESHED ENTERPRISE dba REFRESHED SHOE CLEANER; MOHAMMED
ALCHABOUN; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV36410 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' conduct of unequivocally controlling the wages, hours,
and working conditions of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees, in violation of the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to: a) pay for all
hours worked; b) pay minimum wages; c) pay overtime wages; d)
provide accurate itemized wage statements; e) pay wages when
employment ends; f) pay wages owed every pay period; g) give rest
and meal breaks; h) maintain accurate records; and i) reimburse
business expenses. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants'
violations of labor laws constitutes a business practice because it
was done repeatedly over a significant period of time in a
systematic manner that was detrimental to him and other aggrieved
employees.
The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants at the Northridge
Fashion Center location in August 2019 until October or November
2019 as a salesperson. The Plaintiff's mother, Yelena Vdovich, has
requested to be appointed as the Plaintiff's Guardian Ad Litem.
Refreshed Enterprise, dba Refreshed Shoe Cleaner, is a
California-based company, which engages in the business of shoe
cleaning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Franklin FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Isabelle Franklin filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Isabelle Franklin v. San Joaquin
General Hospital, Case No. 2:19-cv-00907-JAM-DB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate; reimbursement of business-related
expenses; actual damages; all wages due terminated employees; costs
of suit; prejudgment interest and such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California labor laws and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, hourly employee, who worked
as a nurse at San Joaquin General Hospital in French Camp,
California from approximately February to May of 2018. She claims
overtime for pre-shift and post shift duties, off-the-clock work
and compensation for missed rest periods.
The appellate case is captioned as Isabelle Franklin v. San Joaquin
General Hospital, Case No. 20-16913, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by October 30, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on November 30, 2020;
-- Appellant Isabelle Franklin opening brief is due on
January 8, 2021;
-- Appellee San Joaquin General Hospital answering brief is
due on February 8, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ISABELLE FRANKLIN, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
David Christopher Leimbach, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 300
Houston, TX 94608
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
E-mail: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
SARASOTA DOCTORS: Bid to Remand Day Suit to State Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as DAVID DAY v. SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL,
INC. d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA, Case No.
8:19-cv-1522-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M.
Hernandez Covington entered an order denying Day's motion to remand
the case to state court.
Day submits that this case must be remanded because the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction. Day argues that Doctors Hospital never
met its burden of showing that both the minimal diversity and
amount-in-controversy requirements of Class Action Fairness Act
were met.
On June 28, 2019, the Court noted that Doctors Hospital had not met
its burden of establishing jurisdiction as it had not provided
sufficient proof of at least one diverse putative class member. The
Court then directed Doctors Hospital to provide such information.
On July 18, 2019, Doctors Hospital filed a motion to dismiss
complaint, which the Court granted in part on September 16, 2019.
Day filed a second amended complaint on September 30, 2019. On
November 21, 2019, Doctors Hospital filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. On June 1, 2020, Day filed a motion to
certify class, which the Court denied on July 23, 2020.
Day initially filed this action in state court on November 30,
2017. On May 23, 2019, Day filed a motion to amend his complaint in
state court, which was granted on June 20, 2019. Day asserted state
law claims for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, breach of contract, and breach of the implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing, alleging that Doctors
Hospital overcharged protection patients, coverage causing to be
injury prematurely exhausted.
Doctors Hospital of Sarasota is a 155-bed private health care
facility located in Sarasota County, Florida. The hospital was
founded in 1967 and is a part of the Hospital Corporation of
America West Florida hospital system.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2GGDFqs at no extra charge.[CC]
SAVILINO LLC: Faces Suit in New York for ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Savilino LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lynnette
Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Savilino LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08110 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020).
Savilino LLC is in the Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel
Manufacturing business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Retirement Sys. Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-06361-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System will move the
Court on February 25, 2021, for an order:
1. certifying pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class of:
"all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Uber Technologies, Inc. common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with Uber's initial public offering, and who
were damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants and the
Individual Defendants' immediate family members; (ii) the
officers, directors, affiliates, and subsidiaries of Uber
and the Underwriter Defendants, at all relevant times,
(iii) Uber's affiliates and employee retirement and/or
benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries to
the extent they purchased or acquired Uber common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents through
any such plan(s); (iv) any entity in which Defendants have
or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person or entity.;
2. appointing Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff as Class
Representative; and
3. appointing Court-appointed Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow
LLP as Class Counsel.
The Lead Plaintiff asserts strict liability and negligence-based
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933. The Lead Plaintiff's claims are based on false and misleading
statements and omissions contained in the Offering Documents issued
in connection with Uber's IPO, commenced on or about May 10, 2019,
of over 180,000,000 shares of common stock at a price of $45 per
share. As detailed in the Complaint, the Defendants violated the
Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Offering Documents regarding, Uber's (i) business
model and growth strategy, (ii) passenger safety issues, and (iii)
financial condition.
Uber offers vehicles for hire, food delivery, package delivery,
couriers, freight transportation, and, through a partnership with
Lime, electric bicycle and motorized scooter rental.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GCSMkF at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Alfred L. Fatale, Esq.
Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 0005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
afatale@labaton.com
mduenas@labaton.com
- and -
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
David Bricker, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com
dbricker@tenlaw.com
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Parker Appeals Orders in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nicholas Parker filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2020, and Judgment dated
September 30, 2020, issued in his lawsuit entitled Parker v. United
Industries Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-5353, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from alleged fraud-related claims.
United Industries Corporation manufactures consumer products for
home, lawn, and garden insect and weed control markets in the
United States.
The appellate case is captioned as Parker v. United Industries
Corporation, Case No. 20-3360, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Nicholas Parker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
Defendant-Appellee United Industries Corporation is represented
by:
Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468-8203
E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com
- and -
Michael Ruttinger, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 592-5000
E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Chad F. Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.
Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 5,
2020, the Hon. Judge Terry Hatter entered an order:
1. granting a motion for class certification on behalf of
all people who:
(a) are currently detained in civil immigration detention
at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Processing Center;
(b) were detained in civil immigration detention at the
Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing
Center at any time between March 28 23, 2020, and the
final disposition of this case but have been transferred
by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
another immigration detention facility, regardless of
whether the other detention facility is within the
Central District of California; or
(c) were detained in civil immigration detention at the
Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing
Center at any time between March 23, 2020, and the final
disposition of this case but have been released pursuant
to a temporary restraining order, a preliminary
injunction, or 8 other temporary release order issued by
this Court.
2. appointing Kelvin Hernandez Roman, Beatriz Andrea Forero
Chavez, and Miguel Aguilar Estrada as representatives of
the class;
3. appointing Ahilan Arulanantham, Jessica Karp Bansal, and
Michael Kaufmann as lead class counsel; and
4. appointing Michelle (Minju) Cho, Samir Deger-Sen, Kyle
Virgien, William Friedman, Charles Berdahl, Amanda
Barnett, and Jessie Cammack as class co-counsel.
The Court said, "The Petitioners-Plaintiffs argued that the class
should be certified because the standard for class certification is
the same as used by the Court to grant provisional class
certification, and there have been no material changes since the
Court granted provisional certification. The Government argued that
the class should not be certified because the
Petitioners-Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality, typicality,
and adequacy. Notably, the Government did not challenge the
establishment of numerosity, adequacy of lead counsel, or Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2) met. The Court finds that numerosity, adequacy of
lead counsel, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) have, indeed, been
established."
The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-56026, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ
ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq.
Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
Michelle Cho, Esq.
Michael Kaufman, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-9500
Facsimile: (213) 417-2211
Email: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
jbansal@aclusocal.org
mcho@aclusocal.org
mkaufman@aclusocal.org
- and -
Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com
- and -
William Friedman, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 756-8268
Email: william.friedman@lw.com
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy
Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID MARIN, Director of
the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and JAMES JANECKA,
Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are represented by:
Daniel Beck, Esq.
USLA-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-2574
Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
Email: daniel.beck@usdoj.gov
- and -
Hillary Burrelle, Esq.
AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 894-2420
- and -
Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Robins, Esq.
DOJ-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
- and -
Scott Grant Stewart, Esq.
DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
UNITED STATES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Scholl Prisoner Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Steven Terner Mnuchin, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Colin Scholl, et al. v.
Steven Mnuchin, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
Mr. Mnuchin is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Treasury.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Margaret
M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, WILLIAM J. ROHLAND,
Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 17-1175C (Fed.
Cl.).
The Plaintiff is currently serving a life sentence in Pennsylvania
state prison. His sentence was imposed in October 2007, and he has
been incarcerated since approximately June 2006. He has
unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief on the basis of an
allegedly defective sentencing order.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and unnamed others, filed his
complaint in the instant action on Aug. 30, 2017. He complains of
conduct by various individual federal and state actors and the
federal government generally. Attached to the complaint was an
"Affidavit of Fact" in which he alleges that Judge Saparito, by
stipulation and process, admitted to having violated Article IV and
Amendments Four, Five, Six, Eight, and Fourteen of the United
States Constitution. He further alleges therein that Judge
Saparito waived any immunity he might have based on his lack of
attempt to preserve and defend his temporal limit.
The Plaintiff contends that Judge Saparito's actions in not
effecting payment of the $1 billion owed to him amount to a breach
of the settlement agreement and thus the use, trespass, and
destruction of the Plaintiff's private res. Further, he avows that
Judge Saparito failed in his fiduciary duty to protect him against
kidnapping perpetrated by the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, and that Judge Saparito and Chief Judge Conner
conspired to deny him an absolute, plain course at law in his 2017
habeas action.
According to the Plaintiff, the alleged breach of the settlement
agreement amounts to a Fifth Amendment taking by the government.
The "res" to which he makes repeated references as being illegally
taken is ostensibly composed of his patents, trust, droits,
intellectual property, work products, and marks. He lists the
following Defendants in his action on the second page of his
complaint: Michael Fedor of the Pennsylvania Treasury Bureau of
Unclaimed Property; Pennsylvania State Treasurer Joe Torsella;
United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions, United States
Secretary of the Treasury Steven Terner Mnuchin; Mr. Kauffman;
Robert Monahue, Krisandra Capozzi, and Frank Capozzi (the three
named Defendants in Capozzi); Judge Saparito; Chief Judge Conner;
and the United States federal government.
The appellate case is captioned as Colin Scholl, et al. v. Steven
Mnuchin, et al., Case No. 20-16915, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees COLIN SCHOLL and LISA STRAWN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jalle Dafa, Esq.
Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: jdafa@lchb.com
kdermody@lchb.com
ysalahi@lchb.com
- and -
Eva Jefferson Paterson, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
1999 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 288-8700
Facsimile: (510) 338-3030
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN GALVAN and PATRICK TAYLOR are
represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
Defendants-Appellants STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury;
CHARLES P. RETTIG, in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED
STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, are
represented by:
Julie Ciamporcero Avetta, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-2743
US BANK: Kehler Files Suit in Kansas
------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Bank, N.A. The
case is styled as Dennis Kehler and Charlotte Kehler, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02486-JWB-JPO (D.
Kan., Sept. 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to a Diversity-Contract Dispute.
US Bank NA operates as a bank. The Company offers products and
services such as internet and mobile banking, internet bill pay,
credi cards, options for paying bills, online statements, saving
account, mortgages, and home loans. US Bank serves customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karen E. Snyder, Esq.
Snyder Law Firm, LLC
10995 Lowell Avenue, Suite 710
Overland Park, KS 66210
Tel: (913) 685-3900
Fax: (913) 440-0724
Email: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
- and -
Michael R. Owens, Esq.
Edgar Law Firm, LLC - KC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
Kansas City, MO 64108
Tel: (816) 531-0033
Fax: (816) 531-3322
Email: owens@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
Snyder Law Firm, LLC
10995 Lowell Avenue, Suite 710
Overland Park, KS 66210
Tel: (913) 685-3900
Fax: (913) 440-0724
Email: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
- and -
Bradley Wilders, Esq.
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP - KC
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 714-7100
Fax: (816) 714-7101
Email: wilders@stuevesiegel.com
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacob Suit Wins Class Status
----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MELINA N. JACOBS, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VERIZON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.; THE
VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; MARC C. REED; MARTHA
DELEHANTY; ANDREW H. NEBENS; CONNIA NELSON; SHANE SANDERS; ROBERT
J. BARISH; DONNA C. CHIFFRILLER, Case No. 1:16-cv-01082-PGG-RWL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order:
1. adopting Magistrate Judge Lehrburger's Report and
Recommendation (R&R) in its entirety;
2. granting the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel;
3. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
on behalf of:
"all participants or beneficiaries of the Verizon Savings
Plan for Management Employees (the Plan) for the period
from April 1, 2010 to August 1, 2016, excluding the
Defendants, other VIMCO or Verizon employees with
responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative
functions, and members of the Verizon Board of Directors,
who had any portion of their accounts in the Plan invested
directly in the Global Opportunity Fund or indirectly in
the Global Opportunity Fund through investment in any
of the Verizon Target Date Funds."
The Court referred the Plaintiff's motion to Magistrate Judge
Lehrburger. On June 1, 2020, Judge Lehrburger issued a R&R
recommending that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and appointment of counsel be approved.
Jacobs brings this putative class action pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by failing to properly monitor and take action with respect
to the Global Opportunity Fund, a poorly performing investment
option offered by the Verizon Savings Plan for Management
Employees.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Verizon who participated in
the Verizon Savings Plan for Management Employees. Verizon sponsors
the Plan. The Plan is an individual account defined-contribution
plan that allows participants to select from a variety of
investment options.
Verizon is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate and a corporate component of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average. The company is based at 1095 Avenue of the Americas in
Midtown Manhattan, New York City, but is incorporated in Delaware.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Sum3At at no extra charge.[CC]
VIKING INSURANCE: Bradley Files Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Insurance
Company of Wisconsin. The case is styled as DeMarkus Bradley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Case No.
3:20-cv-00640-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., Oct. 2, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers property, auto, motorcycle, annuities,
equipment, and life insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent Hazzard, Esq.
HAZZARD LAW, LLC
447 Northpark Drive
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 977-5253
Fax: (601) 977-5236
Email: brent.hazzard@hazzard.law
- and -
Ronald E. Stutzman, Jr., Esq.
THE STUTZMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
106 Luckney Station Road, Suite B
Flowood, MS 39232
Phone: (769) 208-5683
Fax: (601) 202-3022
Email: rstutzman@stutzmanlawfirm.com
WALMART INC: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as contract product liability. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd.
Walmart, Inc., is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
Brian G. Lee, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-0988
Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
E-mail: kyoon@yoon-law.com
syasuda@yoonlaw.com
WENDY'S INT'L: Zamora ADA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, issued an Order granting, with leave to amend,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned JESSE ZAMORA,
et al. v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 19-CV-06133-LHK
(N.D. Cal.).
District Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that the Plaintiffs shall file any
amended complaint within 30 days of this Order. Failure to file an
amended complaint within 30 days of this Order or failure to cure
deficiencies identified herein or in the Defendant's motion to
dismiss will result in dismissal of the deficient claims with
prejudice. The Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or new
parties without a stipulation or leave of the Court.
Plaintiffs Jesse Zamora, Lonia Smith, Roy Rios, and Daniel Onn
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this putative class action
against Defendant Wendy's International, LLC ("Defendant"). The
Plaintiffs are individuals with visual impairments, who allege that
the Defendant violated their rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California's Unruh Act because the
Defendant's restaurants only permit "drive-thru" service after
certain hours at night. The Plaintiffs are California residents and
their visual impairments render them unable to operate a motor
vehicle.
According to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), more than 270
Wendy's-branded restaurants are located in California. Plaintiffs
allege Wendy's restaurants offer both counter service and
"drive-thru" service. Late at night, many Wendy's restaurants
remain open but counter service is not available to serve food.
Instead, customers must use the drive-thru to obtain food. The
restaurants, however, do not permit pedestrians to use the
drive-thru, with the result that pedestrians are unable to obtain
food during these late-night periods.
In her Order granting dismissal, Judge Koh opines that (1) the
Plaintiffs do not adequately plead that the Defendant "owns" the
relevant restaurants within the meaning of the ADA; and (2) the
Plaintiffs do not adequately plead that the Defendant "operates"
the relevant restaurants.
As a result, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' ADA claims. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claims under
the Unruh Act are premised on their ADA claims. Therefore, because
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the ADA, they
have also failed to state a claim under the Unruh Act, Judge Koh
concludes citing Pride Mobility, 2016 WL 6393549, at *6 (dismissing
an Unruh Act claim that was premised on an ADA violation when
plaintiff failed to state a claim under the ADA).
Nonetheless, Judge Koh ntoes, because amendment would not be
futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice the Defendant, and
because the Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith, the Court
GRANTS the Plaintiffs leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y94zhve3 from Leagle.com.
WESCO INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MAO-MSO
RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, a segregated series of MAO-MSO II
LLC v. WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, AMTRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST NONPROFIT INSURANCE
COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES
INSURANCE CO., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-24048 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 2,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory
payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors
and the proposed class members under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors, who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law. The Defendants have also
failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the Class Members for
accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements
with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff has established various designated series pursuant to
Delaware law in order to maintain various claims recovery
assignments separate from other company assets, and to account for
and associate certain assets with certain particular series.
The Defendants are insurance providers in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd., 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Francesco A. Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
WOLVERINE WORLD: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolverine World Wide,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-08260 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. or Wolverine Worldwide, is a publicly
traded American footwear manufacturer based in Rockford,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ZF ACTIVE: Faces Adams Suit Over Faulty TRW Airbag Control Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY ADAMS, LARAE ANGEL, BOBBI JO BIRK-LABARGE, JOHN COLBERT,
BRIAN COLLINS, DOROTHY COOKS, GERSEN DAMENS, JOY DAVIS, JAMES DEAN,
DYLAN DEMORANVILLE, TIFFANY ECKLOR, TATIANA GALES, RICKY GERISCHER,
CONSTANZA GONZALEZ, LAWRENCE GRAZIANO, PAUL HUITZIL, DANNY HUNT,
RICHARD KINTZEL, JAMES KNEUP, STEVE LAVEAUX, DELORAS MCMURRAY, CARL
MILLER, RAVICHANDRAN NAMAKKAL, MICHAEL NEARING, BURTON RECKLES,
JOHN ROBINSON, DONNA RONAN, REMIGIUSZ RUNDZIO, JOHN SANCOMB, DAN
SUTTERFIELD, AND LORE VANHOUTEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ZF ACTIVE SAFETY AND ELECTRONICS US
LLC; ZF PASSIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS US INC.; ZF AUTOMOTIVE US INC.; ZF
TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP.; ZF NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ZF HOLDINGS
B.V.; ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC.,
HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.; HYUNDAI MOBIS
CO. LTD.; MOBIS PARTS AMERICA, LLC; KIA MOTORS CORPORATION; KIA
MOTORS AMERICA; FCA US LLC; FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V.; TOYOTA
MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., INC.; HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
CO., INC.; HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC.; HONDA R&D CO., LTD.; HONDA
R&D AMERICAS, LLC; MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION; AND MITSUBISHI
MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-12699-MFL-EAS (E.D.
Mich., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and various
state-specific claims.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose to
their customers, including the Plaintiffs, that their vehicles were
manufactured and designed with defective ZF TRW Airbag Control
Units or (ACUs). The ACU defect could cause the airbags and
seatbelts in more than 15 million vehicles to fail to activate
during a potentially fatal head-on collision. The Defendants made
misleading statements and omissions concerning the ACU defect for
years since the Class vehicles were labeled and marketed to have
working airbags and seatbelts. The Defendants knew about the ACU
defect, yet failed to adequately warn or compensate consumers.
As a result of the Defendants' misconduct and omissions, the
Plaintiffs assert that they and Class members suffered damages and
did not receive the full benefit of the bargain in acquiring the
Class vehicles. They add that they would not have purchased the
Class vehicles or would have paid less, if the Defendants did not
conceal material information regarding the defective ACU.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC is a company that
manufactures active and passive safety systems for the automotive
market, with its principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan.
ZF Passive Safety Systems US Inc. is a manufacturer of passive
safety systems for automobiles, with its principal place of
business in Romeo, Michigan. ZF Automotive US Inc. is a supplier of
automotive products, with its principal place of business in
Livonia, Michigan.
ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a supplier of automotive
systems and technologies, with its principal place of business in
Livonia, Michigan. ZF North America, Inc. is a manufacturer of
automobiles and automobile parts, with its principal place of
business in Northville, Michigan. ZF Holdings B.V. is a global
company focused on providing active and passive safety products,
and services to the automotive industry, with its principal place
of business in the Netherlands. ZF Friedrichshafen AG is a German
car parts manufacturer headquartered in Friedrichshafen, Germany.
STMicroelectronics N.V. is a multinational electronics and
semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
STMicroelectronics International N.V. is a manufacturer and seller
of semiconductors and electronic chips headquartered in Geneva,
Switzerland. STMicroelectronics Inc. is a manufacturer and seller
of semiconductors and electronic chips headquartered in Geneva,
Switzerland.
Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. is an automobile manufacturer based in
Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is an automobile
manufacturer based in Fountain Valley, California. Hyundai Mobis
Co. Ltd. is a car parts company based in South Korea.
Mobis Parts America, LLC is a manufacturer of automobile parts
based in Fountain Valley, California.
Kia Motors Corporation is a multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Kia Motors America is a
company that operates as an automobile dealer based in Irvine,
California.
FCA US LLC is an automobile manufacturer based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. is an automobile
manufacturer based in London, England.
Toyota Motor Corporation is an automobile manufacturer based in
Japan. Toyota Motor North America Inc. is a Plano, Texas-based
holding company of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota
Motor Corporation in the United States. Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing North America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturing
and research and development company based in Plano, Texas. Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is the North American Toyota sales,
marketing, and distribution subsidiary based in Plano, Texas.
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. is a Japanese multinational conglomerate
corporation primarily known as a manufacturer of automobiles,
motorcycles, and power equipment. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is
an automobile manufacturer based in Torrance, California. Honda of
America Mfg., Inc. is an automobile manufacturer based in Ohio.
Honda R&D Co., Ltd. is a company that offers research and
development services of Honda products based in Japan. Honda R&D
Americas, LLC is a company that provides research, development and
testing services based in Torrance, California.
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation is a multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Mitsubishi Motors North
America, Inc. is a company that provides automobile products and
services based in Cypress, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
- and –
Roland Tellis, Esq.
David Fernandes, Esq.
Adam Tamburelli, Esq.
Elizabeth Smiley, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
atamburelli@baronbudd.com
esmiley@baronbudd.com
- and –
David Stellings, Esq.
John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
Katherine McBride, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
jnicolaou@lchb.com
kmcbride@lchb.com
- and –
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
ndesai@lchb.com
pgnguyen@lchb.com
- and –
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
- and –
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@Beasleyallen.com
Mitch.Wlliams@Beasleyallen.com
- and –
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Joshua Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and –
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
Tyler E. Ulrich, Esq.
Ryan B. Witte, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 South East 2nd Street, Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
tulrich@bsfllp.com
rwitte@bsfllp.com
- and –
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Joseph H Meltzer, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER AND CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19807
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
- and –
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
- and –
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
- and –
Peter Prieto, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One S.E. Third Ave., Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
- and –
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: jkl@pritkzkerlevine.com
ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
- and –
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: rjensen@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
Michael J. Pacelli, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
E-mail: Sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
Ahurt@robinskaplan.com
Mpacelli@robinskaplan.com
- and –
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
- and –
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
mcashman@hjlawfirm.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 ***