/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201028.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 216
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Hamilton Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Reams Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties in Martin FACTA Suit Reach Deal
AMERICAN BOARD: Mannis Antitrust Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN BOARD: Rosenstein Antitrust Class Suit Moved to N.D. Ill.
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Arellano Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Nix JAVELIN Shareholder Suit Pending
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Royall FDCPA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
AVENUE U BAGELS: Serrano Alleges Unpaid Wages for Deli Staff
BLACKBAUD INC: Atwood Sues Over Data Breach That Exposed PII, PHI
BLUE CROSS: McCullough ERISA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
BW EQUITY: Angeles Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Joint Liability Trial to Commence Sept. 2021
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Grand Princess Guests' Suit Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss O'Neill Putative Class Suit Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Ruby Princess Guests' Suit Pending
CARNIVAL CORP: Eicher Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Service Lamp, Elmensdorp & Atachbarian Suits
CARNIVAL CORP: Facing Karpik Class Action
CARNIVAL CORP: Lindsay and Zehner Putative Class Suit Ongoing
CARNIVAL CORP: Order of Dismissal in Turner Suit Appealed
CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Former Grand Princess Guests Ongoing
COCA-COLA CO: Brienza Sues Over Beverage's Deceptive Labels
CONAGRA BRANDS: Appeal in Briseno Settlement Still Pending
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Johnson Chen Consolidated Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Facing Putative Class Suit in Michigan
CRYSTAL MAIDS: LaCaprucia ERISA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
DAVEY TREE: Appeal From Arbitration Order in Hermosillo Dismissed
DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DETROIT PROPERTY: James, et al. Seek to Certify Class
DIEFFENBACH'S POTATO: Angeles Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Pelletier Suit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Obtains Summary Judgment in Mader Suit
EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES: Munoz FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
FIRST MARINER: Court Certifies Borrowers Class in Bezek Suit
FLUOR CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit in Texas Pending
GEICO CASUALTY: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Sigler Suit
GENIUS BRANDS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
GOHEALTH INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Aleisa Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
GOOGLE LLC: Brown Sues Over Sale of Illegal Mobile Casino Apps
GREATER DELAWARE: Dixon Sues Over Coordinators' Unpaid Wages & OT
HERC HOLDINGS: Denial of Relief of Judgment in Ramirez Affirmed
HOME DEPOT: Davey Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
HOME DEPOT: Flores Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
IDT CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Entered in Sanchez Suit
IDT CORP: Units Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit
INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Mejia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
JAMAICA: STATIN Reports 6% Decline in Labor Force in July
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Facing NexPoint Merger-Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Escanuelas Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Distributes Contaminated Wipes, Armstrong Suit Says
KRAFT HEINZ: Ferron FDUTPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
KRONOS INC: Figueroa's Section 15(a) Claim Remanded to State Court
LAKEWOOD HEALTHCARE: Curry Sues Over Nurse Assistants' Unpaid Wages
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Family Trust Sues Over 4.2% Drop in Share Price
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Facing Securities Class Suit in Canada
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Facing Tremblay Securities Class Action
LYFE PRODUCTIVES: Faces Fuller Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Manning Putative Class Suit Pending
NEW YORK: Young Sues Over School Aides' Delayed Wage Payments
ON THE BARRELHEAD: Teblum TCPA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Sends Unsolicited Text Ads, Johnson Suit Alleges
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
PP&G INC: Faces Butler Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in D. Maryland
PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Distribution to Begin Soon
RADNET INC: Fails to Protect Employees' PII, Pfeiffer Suit Says
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Turizo TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Ongoing
ROBERTSON'S READY: Thomas Suit Alleges Improper Wages for Drivers
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: COVID-19 Related Class Suit Underway
SATELLITE COUNTRY: Theriot May Partially Testify in Prejean Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
SNAP INC: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
SOCIETY INSURANCE: T & J's Suit Moved From N.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Wiseguys Pizzeria Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
STANLEY LEWIS: Turner Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Fraudulent IRS Filing
STERLING BANCORP: Bid to Nix Okla. Police Retirement Suit Pending
STERLING BANCORP: Bid to Nix Oklahoma Police Suit Pending
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Pet Parade Suit Says
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Appeal in Stichting Depositary Suit Pending
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settlement in TCPA Suit Wins Initial Approval
TA OPERATING: Chandler Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
TAIHO CORPORATION: Boley Sues Over Retaliation & Wrongful Dismissal
TECHSERV CONSULTING: Hartman FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
TELADOC HEALTH: Blind Can't Access Website, Bishop Alleges
TSR INC: Stipulation in Paskowitz Class Suit Wins Initial OK
ULTA SALON: Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
UNCLE MARIO'S: Quic Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Pizzeria Staff
UNIT CORP: Agreement Reached to Settle Cockerell Oil Class Suit
UNIT CORP: Deal Reached to Settle Chieftain Royalty Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Action Challenges Eviction Moratorium Order
VAXART INC: Himmelberg and Hovhannisyan Suits Consolidated
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Securities Suit
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Rite Aid Merger Suit
WESTERN EXPRESS: Bedjan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Fails to Honor Payer Obligations, MSP Says
WOLFE JONES: Debt Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Miller Says
YOUTH OPPORTUNITY: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Youth Counselors
*********
3M COMPANY: Hamilton Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.;
KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03604-RMG (D.S.C., October 14, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds
to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and
remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants did not warn public entities,
firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by
either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or
its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied
on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals
company headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company with its
principal place of business located in Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection
products based in Bismarck, North Dakota.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Reams Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY REAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.;
KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03683-RMG (D.S.C., October 20, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds
to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and
remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants did not warn public entities,
firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by
either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or
its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied
on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals
company headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company with its
principal place of business located in Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection
products based in Bismarck, North Dakota.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of Marriott
International, Inc. related to the data security incident involving
unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood
Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges negligence by the company, and seeks monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief,
relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access
to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
("Starwood"), which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.
Accenture said, "Since 2009, we have provided certain IT
infrastructure outsourcing services to Starwood. We believe the
lawsuit is without merit and we will vigorously defend it. We
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties in Martin FACTA Suit Reach Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 12, 2020, that the parties in the
class action case styled, Martin v. Safeway, will seek court
approval of a settlement.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA.
The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the
Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA.
The Company has answered the complaint and is vigorously defending
the matter.
On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions
with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.
The parties will seek court approval of the settlement.
The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.
AMERICAN BOARD: Mannis Antitrust Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVE MANNIS, M.D., TONIANNE FRENCH, M.D., and
LOUIS LIM, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, AMERICAN BOARD
OF ANESTHESIOLOGY and AMERICAN BOARD OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00341, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on October 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06238 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the California's Cartwright Act, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law by engaging in anticompetitive
activities to monopolize the market for Initial Board Certification
and maintenance of certification.
American Board of Medical Specialties is a non-profit organization
which represent broad areas of specialty medicine in the United
States, with its headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois.
American Board of Anesthesiology is a non-profit organization that
sets standards and exams for the accreditation of Board certified
anesthesiologists coming to the end of their residency in the
United States, with its headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina.
American Board of Emergency Medicine is a non-profit organization
that certifies emergency physicians who meet its educational,
professional, and examination standards in the United States, with
its headquarters in East Lansing, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: davem@rgrdlaw.com
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
George C. Aguilar, Esq.
Jenny L. Dixon, Esq.
Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
jdixon@robbinsarroyo.com
ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com
AMERICAN BOARD: Rosenstein Antitrust Class Suit Moved to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXANDER ROSENSTEIN, M.D., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN BOARD OF
ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY and AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01754, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on October 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06244 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the California's Cartwright Act, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law by engaging in anticompetitive
activities to monopolize the market for Initial Board Certification
and maintenance of certification.
American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery is an organization with the
goal of establishing educational and professional standards for
orthopedic residents and surgeons in the United States, with its
headquarters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
American Board of Medical Specialties is a non-profit organization
which represent broad areas of specialty medicine in the United
States, with its headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: davem@rgrdlaw.com
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
ashingler@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
George C. Aguilar, Esq.
Jenny L. Dixon, Esq.
Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
jdixon@robbinsarroyo.com
ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Arellano Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VERONICA ARELLANO, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES,
INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00026653-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on October
21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02071-GPC-MDD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide all
meal periods, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair business practices.
The Anthem Companies, Inc. is a provider of health insurance in the
United States, with its principal place of business in
Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
- and –
Reiko Furuta, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: rfuruta@seyfarth.com
AQUA METALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re: Aqua
Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142, is still
pending.
Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District California against the Company, Stephen Clarke,
Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig.
On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142.
On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved
counsel for the lead plaintiffs.
On July 20, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint"), on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the Company's securities between May 19, 2016 and
November 9, 2017, against the company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas
Murphy and Selwyn Mould.
The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's lead recycling
operations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks to hold the individual defendants as control persons
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") based on alleged false
and misleading statements concerning the company's lead recycling
operations contained in, or incorporated by reference in, the
company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection
with the Company's November 2016 public offering. That claim is
asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares
pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that Registration Statement.
The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the individual defendants
liable as control persons pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities
Act.
The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs. On September 18, 2018, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety and
the plaintiff subsequently filed its opposition to the motion.
In an Order dated August 14, 2019, the Court granted in part, and
denied in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court
granted the motion to dismiss the Securities Act Section 11 claim
and the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim based on
alleged false and misleading statements and gave the plaintiffs
leave to amend to address the deficiencies.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims regarding site visits.
On September 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint that dropped the Securities Act Section 11 claim but
otherwise alleges the same claims as were alleged previously.
The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.
On November 1, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims in the Second
Amended Complaint based on alleged false and misleading statements,
but not the claims regarding site visits.
The motion is under consideration by the Court.
Aqua Metals said, "The Company denies that the claims in the Second
Amended Complaint have any merit and the Company intends to
vigorously defend the action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Nix JAVELIN Shareholder Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), is pending.
Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."
All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional
defendants.
The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps
to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage
by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders.
The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants.
The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief,
to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind
the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.
On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.
On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling. On September 27, 2019, the court further
deferred the matter for six months.
On June 15, 2020, co-counsel for the plaintiff filed a notice of
supplemental authority requesting to move the matter forward. On
August 19, 2020, a Notification To Parties of Contemplated
Dismissal was sent out by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to all
parties. Counsel for the plaintiff responded on August 24, 2020,
with a Motion to Defer Dismissal.
No further action has been taken by the court.
Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party.
An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the
Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the
plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN
and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved
favorably, could be substantial.
ARMOUR said, "Due to the preliminary nature of all of these suits,
ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their outcome."
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Royall FDCPA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHARON ROYALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC, Case No.
2020CV04349, was removed from the Texas County Court in and for
Bexar County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas on October 19, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-01240 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act.
Asset Acceptance LLC is a company that purchases and collects
charged-off consumer debt, with its principal place of business
located in Warren, Michigan. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-8500
Facsimile: (305) 789-7799
E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com
- and –
Kevin A. Teters, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 964-9408
Facsimile: (214) 964-9501
E-mail: kevin.teters@hklaw.com
AVENUE U BAGELS: Serrano Alleges Unpaid Wages for Deli Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANTONIO SERRANO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVENUE U BAGELS, INC. D/B/A AVENUE
U BAGELS, STEVE DOE, VICTOR DOE, and ANGEL DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05028 (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide a written wage
notice, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and unlawful
tip deductions.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a sandwich maker, a
counter attendant, a delivery stocker, a delivery worker and a
cleaner at the deli located at 284 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York
from approximately February 2018 until on or about August 23,
2020.
Avenue U Bagels, Inc. is an owner and operator of a deli under the
name Avenue U Bagels located at 284 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BLACKBAUD INC: Atwood Sues Over Data Breach That Exposed PII, PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDE M. ATWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01230-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., October 16, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
express contract, breach of implied contract, and violation of
State Data Breach Statutes.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personally identifiable information (PII) and Private Health
Information (PHI) of patients, employees, customers and donors of
its clients following a data breach in May 2020. The Defendant
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter
alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing
to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard customer PII; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the data breach;
and failing to provide the Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and
accurate notice of the incident.
As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft.
Blackbaud, Inc. is a cloud computing provider with its principal
place of business on Daniel Island, Charleston County, South
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
John J. Drudi, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10476 Armstrong Street
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 934-6377
Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
jdrudi@wiselaw.pro
BLUE CROSS: McCullough ERISA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JEAN MCCULLOUGH, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 16-2019-CA-2057, was removed from
the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval
County, Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on October 14, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-01164 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by
refusing to pay for the Plaintiff's surgery. The Plaintiff seeks
insurance benefits under a group policy governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. is a health insurance
company based in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. Conner, Esq.
Jennifer A. Mansfield, Esq.
Michael M. Gropper, Esq.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 353-2000
Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
E-mail: timothy.conner@hklaw.com
jennifer.mansfield@hklaw.com
michael.gropper@hklaw.com
camille.winn@hklaw.com
BW EQUITY: Angeles Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BW EQUITY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08806 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Web site,
www.brochuwalker.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Web site. These access barriers include, but not limited to:
(1) Web site's features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately
vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) lack of a label
element or title attribute for each subject field; (3) presence of
same title elements on Web pages; (4) contain a host of broken
links, which is a hyperlink to a nonexistent or empty Web page.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
BW Equity LLC is a women's clothing company with its principal
place of business located in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Joint Liability Trial to Commence Sept. 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a joint
liability trial will commence on or around September 13, 2021, in
the class action suit related to the train derailment in
Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group and while the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.
Following the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada
under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and MMAR filed for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Plans of arrangement were approved in both
Canada and the U.S. (the "Plans"), providing for the distribution
of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.
A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced in
Canada and the U.S. against Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP)
and others:
(1) Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment,
Wildlife and Parks ordered various parties, including CP, to
remediate the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order") and served CP
with a Notice of Claim for $95 million for those costs. CP appealed
the Cleanup Order and contested the Notice of Claim with the
Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. These proceedings are stayed
pending determination of the Attorney General of Quebec ("AGQ")
action.
(2) The AGQ sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court claiming $409
million in damages, which was amended and reduced to $315 million
(the "AGQ Action"). The AGQ Action alleges that: (i) CP was
responsible for the petroleum crude oil from its point of origin
until its delivery to Irving Oil Ltd.; and (ii) CP is vicariously
liable for the acts and omissions of the MMA Group.
(3) A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of
persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in,
operating a business in, or physically present in Lac-Megantic at
the time of the derailment was certified against CP on May 8, 2015
(the "Class Action"). Other defendants including MMAC and Mr.
Thomas Harding ("Harding") were added to the Class Action on
January 25, 2017. The Class Action seeks unquantified damages,
including for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and
economic loss.
(4) Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Quebec Superior
Court claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which was
amended and reduced to approximately $15 million (the "Promutuel
Action"), and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP claiming
approximately $3 million in damages (the "Royal Action"). Both
actions contain similar allegations as the AGQ Action. The actions
do not identify the subrogated parties. As such, the extent of any
overlap between the damages claimed in these actions and under the
Plans is unclear. The Royal Action is stayed pending determination
of the consolidated proceedings.
On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the
Promutuel Action were consolidated. These consolidated claims are
currently scheduled for a joint liability trial commencing on or
around September 13, 2021, followed by a damages trial, if
necessary.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Grand Princess Guests' Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that on July 13, 2020,
another group of former guests from Grand Princess filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Princess Cruises, Carnival
Corporation and Carnival plc.
Carnival said, "We have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
amended action."
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss O'Neill Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that the company is seeking dismissal of a
purported class action suit initiated by Kathleen O'Neill.
On July 13, 2020, O'Neill, a former guest from Coral Princess filed
a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Princess Cruises, Carnival
Corporation, and Carnival plc.
Carnival said, "We have filed a motion to dismiss."
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Ruby Princess Guests' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the purported class action suit initiated by former guests of Ruby
Princes remains pending.
On June 4, 2020, numerous former guests from Ruby Princess filed a
purported class action against Princess Cruises.
Princess Cruises filed a motion to dismiss, in response to which
the plaintiffs amended their action to remove their class action
allegations and seek recovery on behalf of two guests who allege
that they contracted COVID-19 while on Ruby Princess.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Eicher Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that Gregory Eicher, a former guest from Grand
Princess filed a purported class action against Princess Cruises on
June 4, 2020.
On September 10, 2020, this action was voluntarily dismissed.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Service Lamp, Elmensdorp & Atachbarian Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported
class action suits initiated by Service Lamp Corporation Profit
Sharing Plan, John P. Elmensdorp and Abraham Atachbarian.
On May 27, 2020, Service Lamp Corporation Profit Sharing Plan filed
a purported class action against Carnival Corporation, Arnold W.
Donald and David Bernstein on behalf of all purchasers of Carnival
Corporation securities between January 28 and May 1, 2020.
As previously disclosed, on June 3, 2020, John P. Elmensdorp filed
a purported class action against the same defendants, and included
Micky Arison as a defendant.
This action is on behalf of all purchasers of Carnival Corporation
securities between September 26, 2019 and April 30, 2020.
These actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making
misrepresentations and omissions related to Carnival Corporation's
COVID-19 knowledge and response, and seek to recover unspecified
damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and
omissions.
On July 21, 2020, Abraham Atachbarian filed a purported class
action against the same defendants as Elmensdorp action.
The Atachbarian action is on behalf of all purchasers of Carnival
Corporation options between January 27 and May 1, 2020 and allege
the same set of factual theories presented in the class actions
described above.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Facing Karpik Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that the company is facing a class suit by Susan
Karpik, a former guest from Ruby Princess.
The case was filed on July 23, 2020, against Carnival plc and
Princess Cruises in the Federal Court of Australia.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Lindsay and Zehner Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported
class action suit initiated by Leonard C. Lindsay and Carl E.W.
Zehner.
On June 24, 2020, Leonard C. Lindsay and Carl E.W. Zehner, former
guests from Carnival Ecstasy or Zaandam (Zaandam), filed a
purported class action against Carnival Corporation, Carnival plc,
Holland America Line, Inc. and Holland America Line – U.S.A.,
Inc.
On September 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who were guests from Zaandam
who embarked on March 8, 2020.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Order of Dismissal in Turner Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that Paul Turner appealed the U.S. District Court
of the Southern District of Florida's decision in granting Costa
Luminosa's motion to dismiss.
On April 7, 2020, Paul Turner, a former guest from Costa Luminosa,
filed a purported class action against Costa Crociere, S.p.A.
("Costa") and Costa Cruise Line, Inc. in the U.S. District Court of
the Southern District of Florida.
On September 10, 2020, the court granted Costa's motion to dismiss
based upon forum non conveniens, and directed that the action be
filed in Italy. The plaintiff has appealed the order.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
CARNIVAL CORP: Suit by Former Grand Princess Guests Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend the purported
class action suit initiated by former guests of Grand Princess.
On April 8, 2020, numerous former guests from Grand Princess filed
a purported class action against Carnival Corporation and Carnival
plc and two of its subsidiaries, Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
("Princess Cruises") and Fairline Shipping International
Corporation, Ltd.
On September 22, 2020, the court granted the company's motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint in part. The court
granted the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
negligence-based claims without prejudice and with leave to amend
and granted the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief without prejudice.
The court denied the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims
for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On October 2, 2020, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
Carnival Corporation owns and operates cruise ships offering
cruises to all major vacation destinations including North America,
United Kingdom, Germany, Southern Europe, South America, and Asia
Pacific. The Company, through a subsidiary also owns and operates
hotels and lodges.
COCA-COLA CO: Brienza Sues Over Beverage's Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS BRIENZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-08676 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of New
York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive and misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of
carbonated beverages under the Coca-Cola brand. The front label
representations of the Product as "Orange Vanilla" and "Orange
Vanilla Flavored" are false because the Product contains fake
vanilla, not disclosed to consumers. Reasonable consumers will not
discover this deception through the Product's ingredient list,
which only lists "Natural Flavors" and does not disclose the
presence of added vanillin which provides almost all of the vanilla
taste.
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members purchased the Product at a premium price.
The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational beverage
corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Appeal in Briseno Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 30, 2020, that a class member in the matter, Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., has taken an appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the court's decision
approving the parties' settlement
The company is a party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling.
These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. in which it is
alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms.
In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims.
The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter. In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, a
single objecting class member appealed the court's decision
approving the settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The settlement will not be final until the appeal has been
resolved.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit entitled, Negrete v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., et al.
The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices.
These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.
The Company has notified the Court that is has reached a settlement
in principle with the plaintiffs, which requires preliminary and
final approval of the Court.
Conagra said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the results
of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter
to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or business."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: West Palm Beach Firefighters' Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.
The Company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The lawsuits assert that the Company's officers made material
misstatements and omissions that caused the market to have an
unrealistically positive assessment of the Company's financial
prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods Inc.
(Pinnacle, thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued
prior to the release of the Company's consolidated financial
results on December 20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal year
2019. The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In addition, on May 9, 2019, a shareholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against the Company's directors
captioned Klein v. Arora, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois asserting harm to the Company due to
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement in connection
with the Pinnacle acquisition.
On July 9, 2019, September 20, 2019, and March 10, 2020, the
Company received three separate demands from stockholders under
Delaware law to inspect the Company's books and records related to
the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business,
acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them.
On July 22, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively, two additional
shareholder derivative lawsuits captioned Opperman v. Connolly, et
al. and Dahl v. Connolly, et al. were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting similar facts
and claims as the Klein v. Arora, et al. matter. On October 21,
2019, the Company received an additional demand from a stockholder
under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to investigate
the conduct of certain officers and directors in connection with
the Pinnacle acquisition and the Company's public statements.
"We have put the Company's insurance carriers on notice of each of
these securities and shareholder matters. While we cannot predict
with certainty the results of these or any other legal proceedings,
we do not expect these matters to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations, or business," the
Company said.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and
changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra
Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Johnson Chen Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended August 30, 2020, that a notice of appeal has been filed
in the consolidated Johnson and Chen class action suit, Johnson v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov. 5, 2018);
Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Dec. 11,
2018).
The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018.
The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.
They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.
On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the
actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April
16, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the
plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint.
A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court
dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in September 2020.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended August 30, 2020, that the settlement in the case, Jadan
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara
Superior Court), has received preliminary court approval.
In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages.
The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class
settlement, which received preliminary court approval in July
2020.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Facing Putative Class Suit in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is a
defendant in a putative class action suit filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division.
On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on
alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding
the Company and its business, and seeking class certification,
unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness
fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from
November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020.
Credit Acceptance said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome
of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this matter."
Credit Acceptance Corporation provides funding, receivables
management, collection, sales training, and related services to
automobile dealers. The Company provides indirect financing for
buyers with limited access to traditional sources of consumer
credit. Credit Acceptance operates in the United States. The
company is based in Southfield, Michigan.
CRYSTAL MAIDS: LaCaprucia ERISA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SUE LACAPRUCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS, DWIGHT CUSTIS,
CRYSTAL MAIDS, LLC, ALCRYST, LLC, THE PRINCIPLE GROUP, LLC, BROOKS
& BROOKS SERVICES, INC., THE LEVI GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2016-CV17971, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on October 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00849-BCW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 including unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer recovery,
conversion, and declaratory relief.
Crystal Maids, LLC is a residential and commercial cleaning company
based in Maryland.
Alcryst, LLC is a retailer of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption, with its principal place of business
located in Arlington, Texas.
The Principle Group, LLC is a provider of building cleaning and
maintenance services based in Glenn Dale, Maryland.
Brooks & Brooks Services, Inc. is a provider of building cleaning
and maintenance services based in Hyattsville, Maryland.
The Levi Group, LLC is a construction company that specializes in
high-end building projects based in Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert J. Hoffman, Esq.
Cassandra R. Wait, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105-2100
Telephone: (816) 374-3200
Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
E-mail: rjhoffman@bclplaw.com
cassie.wait@bclplaw.com
DAVEY TREE: Appeal From Arbitration Order in Hermosillo Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE DIAZ HERMOSILLO; OSCAR DIAZ HERMOSILLO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY; THE DAVEY TREE
EXPERT COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 18-16522 (9th
Cir..), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed
Defendants-Appellants Davey Tree's appeal from the district court's
order compelling arbitration.
Plaintiffs-Appellees brought an employment-related class action
against Davey Tree in state court. Shortly thereafter, Davey Tree
successfully removed the case to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act. Davey Tree then moved to compel
individual arbitration on all causes of action -- with the
exception of the claim brought under California's Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") -- pursuant to (1) the arbitration clause in
Plaintiffs-Appellees' employment applications, and (2) a
stand-alone arbitration agreement.
The district court denied in part and granted in part Davey Tree's
motion, compelling arbitration on a classwide basis pursuant to the
employment applications but not the stand-alone arbitration
agreement. The court then stayed the non-arbitrable PAGA claim
pending arbitration of the other claims, ordered the parties to
notify the court within seven days of the conclusion of arbitration
proceedings, and ordered the clerk to "administratively close the
file." The court did not expressly dismiss or stay any of the
arbitrable claims.
Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration with the district
court or seeking an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C
Section 1292(b), Davey Tree immediately appealed the district
court's order to the Court. Specifically, it appeals the portion
of the district court's order compelling class arbitration pursuant
to the employment applications, and requests that it reverses the
district court and compel arbitration on an individual basis.
Davey Tree does not appeal the district court's order insofar as it
declined to order arbitration pursuant to the stand-alone
arbitration agreement. The Court asked the parties to file
supplemental briefing on whether 9 U.S.C. Section 16 bars the
appeal.
The Federal Arbitration Act limits the type of orders involving
arbitration that are immediately appealable. Generally, orders
denying arbitration are immediately appealable. On the other hand,
orders compelling arbitration and staying proceedings are not
immediately appealable absent certification under 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b). However, if a district court grants a motion to compel
arbitration and dismisses the underlying claims, the order
constitutes a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is
immediately appealable under the Act.
In the case, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court
compelled arbitration, explicitly stayed the non-arbitrable claim,
neither explicitly dismissed nor stayed the remainder of the
claims, and administratively closed the file. It presumes that
claims that are not explicitly dismissed by the district court are
stayed unless otherwise established. Davey Tree does not rebut
this presumption. Because the district court's order is an order
compelling arbitration and staying proceedings, the Ninth Circuit
lacks appellate jurisdiction under the Act.
Davey Tree argues -- without legal support -- that the Court has
have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(B) because an
order compelling arbitration constitutes an order denying
arbitration when the movant does not obtain arbitration according
to the terms it agreed to. It goes without saying that classwide
and individual arbitration have different attributes. But whether
the parties agreed to individual or class arbitration is exactly
the question presented by Davey Tree's appeal on the merits.
In other words, whether Davey Tree got the type of arbitration that
it bargained for requires our interpretation of the agreements.
Davey Tree's view of 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(B) would therefore
require the Court to consider the merits of Davey Tree's appeal --
a tempting but unsupported invitation that would render the Act's
limitations on appellate jurisdiction meaningless.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit briefly notes that this result is in
part a creation of Davey Tree's own doing. Davey Tree could have
pursued immediate review in a number of ways without bypassing the
jurisdictional limitations of the Act. But instead of following
any of those steps, it immediately appealed only the portion of the
district court's order compelling arbitration, asking us to read 9
U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(B) in an unprecedented manner in order to
circumvent the text of the statute and fast track a favorable
decision. No court has expanded appellate jurisdiction under the
Act in the way advocated by Davey Tree, and the Court sees no
justification to do so, particularly in light of these alternative
avenues for immediate review.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack
of appellate jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 24, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/3kxeiX7 from Leagle.com.
DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 8, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the purported class action suit initiated by a former company
employee.
In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.
Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims.
Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes could
prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential
assessment of any damages on a class basis.
Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is
not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter.
However, based on management's current understanding of the
relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that
these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and
should not have a material adverse effect on the Company' financial
position, operations or cash flows.
Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of
September 8, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.
DETROIT PROPERTY: James, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE JAMES, et al., v.
DETROIT PROPERTY EXCHANGE, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-13601-SFC-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
all persons who sought to purchase real property from any
of the Defendants at any time from November 19, 2015
through final judgment, and who have signed:
(1) any document characterizing the transaction as a "Rent
to Own" transaction, or
(2) two or more of the following documents drafted by or
on behalf of Defendants: "lease," "option to
purchase," "real estate purchase agreement," or
(3) a Land Contract with Defendants.
Plaintiffs answer: Yes
Defendants answer: No"; and
2. appointing Mantese Honigman and Michigan Legal Services as
Class Counsel.
This case arises from Defendant Michael Kelly's use of numerous
shell entities to perpetrate a predatory seller-financing scheme
involving the sale of real property in Detroit, Michigan.
Each Plaintiff and putative Class Member executed agreements to
purchase a home from Defendants and made payments to Defendants
pursuant to these agreements. Because these agreements constitute
land contracts and/or credit sales under the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA), the Defendants are required to comply with TILA and the
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). But they do not.
The Defendants' failure is intentional -- it is part of Defendants'
predatory and abusive business model to mislead residents in
Detroit and take advantage of them.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Oct.
2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/33GfmSs at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
Theresamarie Mantese, Esq.
Kathryn R. Eisenstein, Esq.
Emily Fields, Esq.
MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
Troy, MI 48083
E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
tmantese@manteselaw.com
keisenstein@manteselaw.com
efields@manteselaw.com
- and -
Marilyn Mullane, Esq.
MICHIGAN LEGAL SERVICES
2727 Second Avenue, Ste. 333
Mailbox No. 37
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 964-4130
E-mail: mmullane@milegalservices.org
Attorneys for Defendants Except Defendant Segura are:
David B. Viar, Esq.
Eric J. Minch, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
E-mail: dbv@miller.law
ejm@miller.law
Attorney for All Defendants are:
William E. Semaan Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. SEMAAN JR., PLLC
51 W. Hancock, Suite 407
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 263-7771
E-mail: attorney.dpx@gmail.com
DIEFFENBACH'S POTATO: Angeles Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIEFFENBACH'S POTATO CHIPS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08807 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
shop.dieffenbachs.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
website's features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately
vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) lack of a label
element or title attribute for each subject field; (3) presence of
same title elements on web pages; (4) contain a host of broken
links, which is a hyperlink to a nonexistent or empty webpage.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Dieffenbach's Potato Chips, Inc. is a potato chip manufacturing
company with its principal place of business located in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Pelletier Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRE PELLETIER, plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC; RAJIV KANISHKA LIYANAARCHCHIE DE SILVA;
SUKETU P. UPADHYAY; and PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, has asked the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to grant his
motion to quash the Defendants' subpoena directed to co-plaintiff
Fernando Inzunza in the shareholder securities class action
Pelletier v. Endo Int'l PLC, No. 2:17-cv-05114-MMB (E.D. Pa.). The
motion is pending before Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo.
Endo International Public Limited Company provides specialty
healthcare solutions. The Company develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes pharmaceutical products and generic drugs. Endo
International offers its products to the medical and healthcare
industries worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leslie E. Weaver, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel.: (415) 445-4004
Fax: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
- and -
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
Evan A. Kubota, Esq.
Benjamin F. Burry, Esq.
Thayne Stoddard, Esq.
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jfonti@bfalaw.com
jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
ekubota@bfalaw.com
bburry@bfalaw.com
tstoddard@bfalaw.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Obtains Summary Judgment in Mader Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MADER, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 3787 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment as to both the Plaintiff's Federal Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") and New York's credit reporting law claims.
In February 2008, Mader signed and submitted an application and
executed a promissory note to obtain funding from Sallie Mae to
attend Reformed Theological Seminary. The Navient Loan was made
under a program that also makes Stafford Loans, which are
guaranteed or funded by nonprofits (including governmental units)
under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Mader testified at his deposition that he understood the term
"non-dischargeable" in the promissory note to mean that when he
filed for bankruptcy, the loan would not be dischargeable. The
Navient Loan funds were disbursed in March 2008.
In December 2012, Mader filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7
bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York. After the bankruptcy proceedings concluded, the
Navient Loan was still reflected on Mader's credit report.
Plaintiff Mader brings the putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging that, by failing to use reasonable procedures
to ensure maximum possible accuracy of his credit report, the
Defendant negligently and willfully violated the FCRA and New
York's credit reporting law.
The Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment as to both
claims.
Mader argues that his Experian credit report inaccurately listed
his discharged Navient Loan as owing and delinquent. It is
undisputed that the Navient Loan was made under a program that also
makes Stafford Loans, which are guaranteed or funded by nonprofits
(including governmental units) under the Federal Family Education
Loan Program. The Navient Loan was therefore made under a program
funded in part by a government unit or nonprofit institution. The
Navient Loan is thus non-dischargeable and can only be discharged
on a showing of undue hardship. As the Plaintiff made no such
showing, the Navient Loan was not discharged in bankruptcy. The
Navient Loan on the Plaintiff's credit report was therefore not an
inaccuracy. Judge Schofield accordingly grants the motion for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiff argues that it remains disputed whether the Navient
Loan was made under a program funded in part by nonprofits or
governmental units. To prove that a dispute exists, the Plaintiff
offers his own declaration stating that (1) he understood the
Navient Loan to be a private loan that was not made or guaranteed
by a government or non-profit; (2) he understood the Reformed
Theological Seminary not to be a Title-IV School under the Higher
Education Act; and (3) his graduate program was not an internship
or residency. Even when construed in the Plaintiff's favor, the
Judge finds the evidence does not create a triable issue of fact to
counter the Defendant's evidence that the Navient Loan was made
under a program funded in part by nonprofits or governmental
units.
Relatedly, the Plaintiff appears to argue that because the
Defendant does not identify the program that made the Navient Loan
or the specific governmental unit or nonprofit that provided
funding to the program, the evidence is insufficient. He, however,
does not show that the law requires more specificity than the
Defendant offers. Neither non-binding case that the Plaintiff
cites stands for this proposition. The Plaintiff's remaining
unsupported assertions that the Navient Loan is not part of the
same program that made Stafford Loans cannot be accepted in light
of the Defendant's admissible evidence to the contrary.
The Plaintiff also argues that, even if the Navient Loan was made
under a program that makes loans guaranteed or funded by nonprofits
or governmental units, the Navient Loan does not fall under
subsection 523(a)(8)(A)(i) because it was solely a private loan and
not connected to public or nonprofit funds. It is not a correct
statement of the law.
Finally, the Plaintiff argues that even if the Navient Loan falls
under subsection 523(a)(8)(A)(i), it remains disputed whether the
loan falls under subsection 523(a)(8)(B). The Judge holds that the
argument misunderstands how the bankruptcy provision functions. It
does not require that a debt be non-dischargeable under both
subsections. Rather, as long as a debt is non-dischargeable under
one of the subsections, and there is no showing of undue hardship,
the debt is not discharged in bankruptcy.
For the reasons stated, Judge Schofield granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3kBDGei from Leagle.com.
EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES: Munoz FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ADONAY MUNOZ and OSCAR LANDAVERDE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EXPRESSWAY
DELIVERIES, INC.; RAPID EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES, INC.; JASON MOLINO;
RICHARD MOLINO; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC668667, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on October 16, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-09518 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Expressway Deliveries, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company based in Carson, California.
Rapid Expressway Deliveries, Inc. is a freight shipping and
trucking company based in Carson, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
Sean F. Daley, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: svoigt@fisherphillips.com
sdaley@fisherphillips.com
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2020, that there are 13 remaining state law claims
brought by a putative class of indirect customers against
Ferrellgas, L.P.
Ferrellgas, L.P. (Ferrellgas) has been named as a defendant, along
with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in
multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class.
These lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the
multidistrict litigation panel.
The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially
dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other
than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine
and Vermont law.
The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a
reversal of the district court's dismissal.
Ferrellgas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in
the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims
and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.
Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas reached a settlement with
the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a total of
$6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the putative direct
purchaser class.
With respect to the indirect customers, the district court
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion
and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims.
As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a
putative class of indirect customers. Ferrellgas believes it has
strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these remaining claims.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.
FIRST MARINER: Court Certifies Borrowers Class in Bezek Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BEZEK, et al. v.
FIRST MARINER BANK, Case No. 1:17-cv-02902-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class of:
"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 First Mariner Bank for which
Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as identified in
Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between January 1, 2009 and
December 31, 2014."
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 First Mariner Bank,
Genuine Title LLC, Competitive Advantage Media Group LLC,
Brandon Glickstein, Inc., and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC.
The Plaintiffs allege First Mariner has harmed all putative class
members by violating the same statutory provision based on a common
scheme between First Mariner and Genuine Title. Although class
members may have worked with different loan officers, the Court
held that proof that the Plaintiffs' loan officer received a
kickback from Genuine Title based on a referral would tend to
advance the argument that other loan officers were similarly
involved. Other minor differences, such as the form of kickback
received by each loan officer, similarly do not make the
Plaintiffs' claims materially different from those of other class
members. Moreover, First Mariner has not alleged, and this Court
does not find, any conflict of interest that would impair
Plaintiffs from advancing the claims of the entire class.
First Mariner is a Maryland corporation and independently owned
bank. Genuine Title was a title service company operating in
Maryland. The Plaintiff alleges that, from 2009 through 2014, First
Mariner brokers referred more than 250 loans (including
Plaintiffs') to Genuine Title for settlement services, pursuant to
an illegal kickback scheme.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum & Opinion dated Oct. 2, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Svc6TG at no
extra charge.[CC]
FLUOR CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit in Texas Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas remains pending.
Since May 2018, purported shareholders have filed various
complaints against Fluor Corporation and certain of its current and
former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14,
2013 through February 14, 2020, and seek to recover damages arising
from alleged violations of federal securities laws.
These claims are based on statements concerning Fluor's internal
and disclosure controls, risk management, revenue recognition, and
Fluor's gas-fired power business, which plaintiffs assert were
materially misleading.
As of May 26, 2020, these complaints have been consolidated into
one matter.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the matter on July 1, 2020. A
hearing on the motion to dismiss is anticipated to occur in late
2020 or early 2021.
Fluor Corporation said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we do not believe it is probable
that a loss will be incurred."
Fluor Corporation through its subsidiaries, provides engineering,
procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization,
operation, maintenance and asset integrity, and project management
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Energy &
Chemicals; Mining, Industrial, Infrastructure & Power; Diversified
Services; and Government. Fluor Corporation was founded in 1912 and
is headquartered in Irving, Texas.
GEICO CASUALTY: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Sigler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's order dismissing the case, NATHAN SIGLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY and GEICO
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-2272 (7th Cir.).
Sigler owned a 2001 Dodge Ram and insured it with GEICO. In June
2013, he was involved in an accident and filed a claim with GEICO
for damage to the vehicle. An adjuster determined that the vehicle
was a total loss and calculated a base value of $3,151.95. GEICO
paid Sigler that amount minus his $500 deductible.
Sigler sued GEICO in federal court in Central Illinois alleging
that the insurer owed him additional money as part of the
replacement cost for his vehicle -- specifically, a $95 title
transfer fee, a $25.50 tag transfer fee, and sales tax in the
minimum amount of $196.99. He did not allege that he purchased or
leased a replacement vehicle and actually incurred these costs.
Rather, the amended complaint (the operative pleading here) asserts
that GEICO's insurance policy promises to pay the equivalent of
these costs in every total-loss claim without regard to whether the
insured obtains a replacement vehicle and actually incurs these
costs.
Sigler proposed to represent a class of policyholders on a
breach-of-contract claim against GEICO for systematically
underpaying its insureds.
GEICO moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that
nothing in the insurance policy's coverage provisions could
reasonably be interpreted as a promise to reimburse Sigler for
vehicle-replacement costs that he had not incurred. It also argued
that an Illinois insurance regulation, incorporated into the policy
as a matter of law, requires reimbursement of these costs only if
the insured has purchased or leased a replacement vehicle and can
document that he paid taxes and transfer fees.
The district court agreed with GEICO's reading of the policy and
the incorporated regulation and dismissed the suit. It set a
deadline for Sigler to file a second amended complaint if he had "a
good faith basis" to do so. When the date passed without a new
pleading, the district court entered final judgment and terminated
the case.
Sigler contends that in every total-loss claim, GEICO is
contractually obligated to pay "actual cash value," defined as "the
replacement cost of the auto or property less depreciation or
betterment." Although "replacement cost" is not further defined,
Sigler argues that it must always include amounts equal to the
applicable sales tax and title and tag transfer fees because
Illinois collects these taxes and fees whenever vehicles are
purchased or leased. And GEICO must pay, he continues, whether or
not the insured purchases or leases a replacement vehicle and
actually incurs these costs.
The Seventh Circuit holds that the argument misconstrues a
limitation on liability as a promise to pay. The Limit of
Liability section of the policy doesn't promise to pay these costs
regardless of whether the insured incurs them; it simply describes
the most that GEICO will pay in the event of a covered loss. To
repeat: the coverage-granting language says only that GEICO will
pay for the "collision loss to the owned or nonowned auto," with
"loss" defined as "direct and accidental loss of or damage to" an
insured vehicle or "other insured property."
Sigler argues that the policy's "silence" on whether he is entitled
to payment for taxes and fees he did not incur should be
interpreted in favor of coverage because GEICO cannot point to
unambiguous language that excludes these particular costs. The
Appellate Court holds that analysis of exclusions does not come
into play unless these costs are encompassed within GEICO's basic
coverage grant in the first instance; an insurance policy does not
need to exclude coverage for something that it does not cover to
begin with.
As important, the policy is not really silent on the subject. An
Illinois insurance regulation specifically addresses when an auto
insurer must pay sales tax and title and tag transfer fees in a
total-loss claim, and the regulation is incorporated into the
policy as a default term as a matter of law. The Illinois
Administrative Code provides that when an auto insurer determines
that an insured vehicle is a total loss as a result of a collision,
the insurer may elect to either replace the insured vehicle or pay
a cash settlement.
As a last resort, Sigler argues that the regulatory conditions on
reimbursement do not apply unless the insurance policy
unambiguously opts in to the payment regime established in section
919.80(c)(3)(A)(i). The regulation is incorporated as a term in
the policy as a matter of law. An insurer may contract to provide
coverage above the default floor specified in the regulation, but
it must do so expressly.
A straightforward reading of GEICO's policy and the incorporated
regulation defeats Sigler's claim. He does not allege that he
incurred these vehicle-replacement costs, let alone that he
substantiated them before the deadline specified in the regulation.
Accordingly, his claim for breach of contract necessarily fails.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Diane S. Sykes, writing for the
Seventh Circuit, affirmed. The premise of Sigler's suit is that
sales tax and title and tag transfer fees are always part of
"replacement cost" in a total-loss claim -- regardless of whether
the insured incurs these costs. That misreads the policy and the
relevant Illinois insurance regulation. GEICO's policy doesn't
promise to pay sales tax or title and tag transfer fees, and the
Illinois Administrative Code requires a settling auto insurer to
pay these costs only if the insured actually incurs and
substantiates them with appropriate documentation. Because Sigler
did not do so, the judge properly dismissed the suit.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's July 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3kBDGei from Leagle.com.
GENIUS BRANDS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Genius Brands
International, Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)
Investors Affected: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Genius Brands International, Inc. According to the Genius Brands
lawsuit defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information regarding: (i)
Nickelodeon's purported broadcast expansion of Genius's Rainbow
Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription fees for the Kartoon Channel!;
and (iii) the Company's growth potential and overall prospects as a
company.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9771&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
GOHEALTH INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of GoHealth, Inc. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/gohealth-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9774&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020
The GoHealth lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of GoHealth
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial
public offering.
Allegations against GOCO include that: (i) the Medicare insurance
industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn, which had begun
in the first half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a higher
risk of customer churn as a result of its unique business model and
limited carrier base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from degradations in
customer persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry
churn, vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated
carrier business model, and GoHealth's efforts to expand into new
geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product
mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable
revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and
(v) these adverse financial and operational trends were internally
projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the initial
public offering.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Aleisa Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANAL ALEISA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A PURELL,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01045, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on October 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-02383-SL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's negligent and intentional
misrepresentation and advertising of its Purell Advanced Hand
Sanitizer in violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.
Gojo Industries, Inc., d/b/a Purell, is a privately held
manufacturer of hand hygiene and skin care products based in Akron,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and –
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
GOOGLE LLC: Brown Sues Over Sale of Illegal Mobile Casino Apps
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01311-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., October 22,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants pursuant to Section
5-421 of the New York General Obligations Law and Sections 225.00
through 225.95 of the New York Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the sale
and promotion of illegal gambling machine games through Google Play
Store. The Defendants offered several casino-style gambling games
on Google Play Store which can be downloaded, played, and paid
money for coins within games to play for additional periods of
time. The concept of paying money in a game for a chance to win
more playing time constitutes illegal gambling under the New York
law.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
Google Payment Corp. is a provider of in-app payment processing
services to Android app developers and Android users, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard F. Lesser, Esq.
SIMON-LESSER PC
355 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 599-5455
Facsimile: (212) 599-5459
- and –
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
D. Frank Davis, Esq.
John E. Norris, Esq.
Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
The Bradshaw House
2154 Highland A venue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
GREATER DELAWARE: Dixon Sues Over Coordinators' Unpaid Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DIXON and KELLY PORRECA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREATER DELAWARE VALLEY
SOCIETY OF TRANSPLANT SURGEONS d/b/a GIFT OF LIFE DONOR PROGRAM,
Defendant, Case No. 201001532 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty.,
October 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Wage
Payment and Collection Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated transplant coordinators
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiff Dixon and Plaintiff Porreca were employed by the
Defendant as transplant coordinators from January 5, 2015 to March
16, 2020 and from October 10, 2016 to June 5, 2020, respectively.
Greater Delaware Valley Society of Transplant Surgeons, d/b/a Gift
of Life Donor Program, is a non-profit organ procurement
organization in the United States, with a principal place of
business located at 401 N. 3rd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ralph A. Powell, Esq.
Wayne D. Bozeman, Esq.
RALPH A. POWELL ESQUIRE, P.C.
2110 Harpers Crossing
Langhorne, PA 18947
Telephone: (215) 439-7781
Facsimile: (267) 390-6127
HERC HOLDINGS: Denial of Relief of Judgment in Ramirez Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the denial of the
plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment with respect to former
Hertz officers in the class action suit entitled, Pedro Ramirez,
Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al.
In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.
In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time.
In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period and made allegations that were
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint.
In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint.
In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint which
included additional allegations, named additional then-current and
former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class
period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.
In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1,
2016.
Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016. In April
2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with
prejudice.
In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018,
oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.
On February 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the
judgment against it, and for leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint would add allegations
related to New Hertz's December 31, 2018 settlement with the SEC
that, among other things, ordered New Hertz to cease and desist
from violating certain of the federal securities laws and imposed a
civil penalty of $16.0 million.
On February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion.
On September 30, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended complaint.
On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for relief
from judgement with respect to the former officers. The court did
not rule on the appeal with respect to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
due to the automatic stay created by Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s
ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.
Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.
HOME DEPOT: Davey Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LISA DAVEY, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC. and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVMSC20-01093, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
October 16, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07297 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
pay meal and rest break premiums, failure to provide wages when
due, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
unfair competition law.
The Home Depot USA, Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the
United States, with its principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
Dorothy F. Kaslow, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
dkaslow@akingump.com
HOME DEPOT: Flores Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as VIRGIE FLORES, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CIV DS 2013065, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
21, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02215 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure
to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, unlawful discount and deductions
of entitled wages, and failure to provide wages when due, and
unfair competition law.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the
United States, with its principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan S. Christie, Esq.
Victor A. Salcedo, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
christiej@akingump.com
vsalcedo@akingump.com
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
initiated by JDS1, LLC.
On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path Communications Inc.
(Straight Path) as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action
and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust
formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership
of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S.
Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.
The complaint alleges that the company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"),, as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to us in connection with
that settlement.
That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund.
The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the
unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight
Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, and us to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the
class Plaintiffs.
On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
The parties are engaged in discovery.
IDT said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter. At this
stage, we are unable to estimate our potential liability, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
IDT CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Entered in Sanchez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2020, that IDT Telecom and Jean Carlos Sanchez have entered
into a stipulation of dismissal of the putative class action
lawsuit initiated by the latter.
On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action
against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging that the company sent unauthorized
marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.
IDT said, "We are evaluating the claim, and at this stage, are
unable to estimate our potential liability, if any. We intend to
vigorously defend this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
IDT CORP: Units Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2020, that IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT
International continue to defend a putative class action suit
initiated by Jose Rosales.
On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action
against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in
California state court alleging certain violations of employment
law.
Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members
of the putative class in accordance with California law.
IDT said, "We are evaluating the claims, and at this stage, are
unable to estimate our potential liability, if any. We intend to
vigorously defend the claims. In August 2019, we filed a cross
complaint against Rosales alleging trade secret and other
violations."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Mejia Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TIFFANY MEJIA, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE, INC.; DELAWARE
NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV11890, was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on October 19, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-09564 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay proper overtime wages for all hours worked,
failure to authorize or permit meal periods and rest periods,
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, failure
to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of
separation of employment, and unfair business practices.
Inglewood Sportservice, Inc. is a provider of venue food and
beverage concessions based in Buffalo, New York.
Delaware North Companies, Incorporated is a global food service and
hospitality company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jon D. Meer, Esq.
Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
Catherine S. Feldman, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
jbrophy@seyfarth.com
cfeldman@seyfarth.com
JAMAICA: STATIN Reports 6% Decline in Labor Force in July
---------------------------------------------------------
Kellaray Miles at Jamaica Observer reports that The Statistical
Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) has reported a six per cent decline
in the country's labour force in July.
Director General of STATIN, Carol Coy, gave the update during a
digital press briefing, according to Jamaica Observer.
According to Coy, as at July 1,279,600 people made up the total
labour force. "This was a decline of 81,200 when compared with July
2019," the report notes
The male labour force, she said, decreased 4.8 per cent while the
female labour force decreased by 7.3 per cent, the report relays.
Coy further said that the total employed labour force had also
declined by 10.8 per cent, amounting to 1,118,300 or 135,800 people
fewer when compared to those employed for the same period last
year, the report discloses.
"Males accounted for 53.8 per cent of this decline. There were 10.5
per cent less males employed while the employment of females went
down by 11.2 per cent," she added.
The number of employed youth, aged 14 to 24 years, also declined by
35,900 to 134,600, the report says.
"The unemployment rate for male youth was 28.5 per cent compared to
16.8 per cent in July 2019. For females, the rate was 33.1 per
cent, which was 8.6 percentage points higher than the rate in July
2019," the STATIN boss said, the report relays.
The agency further reported a 12.6 per cent unemployment rate for
the period, which was 4.8 percentage points higher than that seen
in July last year, the report notes.
"The unemployment rate increased for both males and females. The
unemployment rate for males increased to 11.5 per cent and females
to 14.0 per cent," the director general outlined, the report
discloses.
These declines in the labour force have been largely attributed by
analysts to the impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic which,
since the first confirmed case in March, has had negative
implications for economic activity in the country, the report
says.
The July survey was conducted by STATIN following the cancellation
of April's survey, which became severely impacted by the effects of
the pandemic, the report notes.
In a COVID-19 module added to the July Labour Force Survey, STATIN
said that it had aimed to assess the impact of the highly
contagious virus on the local labour force, the report adds.
About Jamaica
Jamaica is an island country situated in the Caribbean Sea. Jamaica
is an upper-middle income country with an economy heavily dependent
on tourism. Other major sectors of the Jamaican economy include
agriculture, mining, manufacturing, petroleum refining, financial
and insurance services.
Standard & Poor's credit rating for Jamaica stands at B+ with
negative outlook (April 2020). Moody's credit rating for Jamaica
was last set at B2 with stable outlook (December 2019). Fitch's
credit rating for Jamaica was last reported at B+ with stable
outlook (April 2020).
As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter-Latin America, Fitch's
revision of Jamaica's outlook in April 2020 to Stable from Positive
reflects the shock to Jamaica from the coronavirus pandemic, which
is expected to lead to a sharp contraction in its main sources of
foreign currency revenues: tourism, remittances and alumina
exports.
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Facing NexPoint Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Jernigan Capital, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing
multiple suits including two putative class action suits related to
its merger with NexPoint RE Merger, Inc.
On September 21, 2020, the Company, Jernigan Capital Operating
Company, LLC (the "Operating Company"), NexPoint RE Merger, Inc.
("Parent") and NexPoint RE Merger OP, LLC (the "Parent OP"),
entered into an Amendment (the "Amendment to the Merger Agreement")
to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of August 3, 2020, by and among the Company,
the Operating Company, Parent and the Parent OP, pursuant to which
Parent will merge with and into the Company (the "Company Merger"),
and, immediately following the Company Merger, the Parent OP will
merge with and into the Operating Company (the "Operating Company
Merger" and, together with the Company Merger, the "Mergers").
Upon completion of the Company Merger, the Company will survive and
the separate existence of Parent will cease. Upon completion of the
Operating Company Merger, the Operating Company will survive and
the separate existence of the Parent OP will cease.
Parent and the Parent OP are affiliates of NexPoint Advisors, L.P.
The Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on September 23, 2020 its definitive proxy statement
relating to the proposed transaction (the "Proxy Statement").
Two putative class actions related to the proposed transaction,
Rosenblatt v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01141-RGA
and Pollack v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-07160-ER, were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware and the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, respectively.
In addition, two complaints related to the proposed transaction,
Weiss v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., et at., No. 1:20-cv-04118-NGG-CLP
and Glover v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-02651-CCB, were filed as individual (not a class) actions
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, respectively.
The lawsuits all name as defendants the Company and the Company's
directors, with the Rosenblatt complaint naming the Operating
Company, Parent and the Parent OP as additional named defendants.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the individual
defendants caused the Company to file a materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy statement relating to the proposed
transaction in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The Rosenblatt complaint seeks a variety of equitable and
injunctive relief, including enjoining defendants from proceeding
with the proposed merger transaction, unspecified damages,
rescission of the merger agreement or any of the terms thereof,
dissemination of revised proxy statement and a declaration that
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a). The Pollack complaint
seeks, among other relief, enjoining defendants from proceeding
with the proposed merger transaction and unspecified damages.
The Weiss complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin defendants
from proceeding with the proposed merger transaction, unspecified
damages, rescission of the merger transaction and a declaration
that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a).
The Glover complain seeks, among other relief, enjoining defendants
from proceeding with the proposed merger transaction and
unspecified damages. All four complaints also seek an award of
attorney's fees and expenses.
The Company believes these claims are without merit.
While the Company believes that the disclosures in connection with
the proposed transaction, including those set forth in the Proxy
Statement, comply fully with applicable law, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement with the
supplemental disclosures. Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.
To the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations in
the litigation that any additional disclosure was or is required.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3keIcix.
Jernigan Capital, Inc. is a self-storage company. The Company is a
direct lender to self storage developers and owners. The company is
based in Memphis, Tennessee.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Escanuelas Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REBECCA ESCANUELAS, an individual, and GEORGE
ESCANUELAS, an individual, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and
DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02017, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on October
20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-14716-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, negligent failure to warn, strict liability for design
defect and failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud for
intentional misrepresentation and concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.
Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation that
develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged
goods, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., is a company that engages in the research and
development of consumer staple products, with its headquarters
located in Skillman, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
One Montgomery, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
- and –
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Distributes Contaminated Wipes, Armstrong Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA ARMSTRONG and ROLAND NADEAU, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. KIMBERLY-CLARK
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03150-M (N.D. Tex.,
October 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, negligence,
fraudulent by silence or omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's nationwide distribution of its
Cottonelle Flushable Wipes and Cottonelle GentlePlus Flushable
Wipes with bacterial contamination. The Defendant failed to detect
the contamination of a bacterial strain called Pluralibacter
gergoviae in the products and proceeded to distribute the
contaminated wipes through retail channels in the U.S. The
Defendant also failed to warn the public about it or otherwise take
any steps to remediate the serious health risks to which it had
exposed various consumers, including the Plaintiffs.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers find
themselves stuck with contaminated and worthless wipes and without
any guidance about how to protect themselves from the risks of harm
the wipes might pose to them and their families.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is an American multinational personal
care corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer
products, with its principal place of business located in Irving,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua L. Hedrick, Esq.
Mark A. Fritsche, Esq.
HEDRICK KRING, PLLC
1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4650
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 880-9600
Facsimile: (214) 481-1844
E-mail: Josh@HedrickKring.com
Mark@HedrickKring.com
- and –
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Abby McClellan, Esq.
Crystal Cook Leftridge, Esq.
Michael R. Owens, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Rd., Ste. 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
cook@stuevesiegel.com
owens@stuevesiegel.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Ferron FDUTPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KIMBERLY E. FERRON, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Case No.
CACE20011985, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 20,
2020.
The Clerk Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case
No. 0:20-cv-62136-RAR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and deceptive
labeling of its Maxwell House Master Blend coffee and Yuban
Traditional Roast Ground coffee in violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a food and beverage company,
co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey T. Foreman, Esq.
Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq.
KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.
1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-1000
Facsimile: (305) 372-1861
E-mail: jforeman@knpa.com
ehonkonen@knpa.com
- and –
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Telephone: (312) 923-2765
Facsimile: (312) 840-7765
E-mail: DPanos@jenner.com
- and –
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
asmith@jenner.com
KRONOS INC: Figueroa's Section 15(a) Claim Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLENE FIGUEROA and JERMAINE BURTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
KRONOS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 19 C 1306 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, remanded the Plaintiffs'
Section 15(a) claim to the state court.
Plaintiffs Figueroa and Burton brought the putative class action in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against Kronos,
alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA").
Kronos is a company that, among other things, provides Illinois
employers with biometric-based time clocks that require employees
to use their biometric information to punch in and out of work.
When beginning work for an employer that uses such a device, an
employee must have her fingerprint or palm print scanned to enroll
in the Kronos database.
Kronos does not inform those employees that it is collecting,
storing, or using their biometric data, nor does Kronos inform them
of the purposes for collecting their data or to whom the data will
be disclosed. It does not maintain retention schedules or
guidelines for permanently destroying the data. Kronos has not
destroyed biometric data when the initial purpose for obtaining it
has been satisfied or within three years of an employee's last
interaction with her employer. Employees are not told whether and
to whom Kronos discloses their data or what would happen to the
data in the event of a Kronos merger or bankruptcy.
Figueroa worked as an hourly employee at Tony's Finer Food
Enterprises Inc. from March 2017 through September 2018. Burton
worked for BWAY from January 2017 through April 2017. Both were
required, as a condition of their employment, to scan their
fingerprints using a Kronos timekeeping device.
Kronos stored the Plaintiffs' fingerprint data in its database or
databases. At no point were they informed of the purposes or
length of time for which Kronos was collecting, storing, using, or
disseminating their data. Nor were they informed of any biometric
data retention policy developed by Kronos or whether it would ever
permanently delete their data. That is because Kronos lacked such
a policy when the Plaintiffs were hired, which means that it failed
to adhere to or publish such a policy at that time -- though "years
later" it implemented and published a policy, long after being sued
in other BIPA actions.
At no point did the Plaintiffs receive or sign a release allowing
Kronos to collect, store, use, or disseminate their biometric data.
Nonetheless, Kronos disseminated their data to other firms,
including firms hosting the data in data centers. The Plaintiffs
would not have provided their data to Kronos had they known it
would retain the data for an indefinite time period without their
consent.
Kronos timely removed the suit under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(b),
premising jurisdiction on the Class Action Fairness Act. It moved
under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint and, in the
alternative, under Civil Rules 23(c)(1)(A) and 23(d)(1)(D) to
strike its class allegations. The Court denied both motions and,
having held that the Plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims under
Sections 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA, ordered supplemental briefing
regarding their standing to pursue a claim under Section 15(a).
At issue is the Plaintiffs' standing to bring their claim under
Section 15(a), which requires private entities that possess
biometric data to develop, publish, and comply with a written
policy that includes a retention schedule and destruction
guidelines. A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a
claim only if the plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring it.
The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing consists of
three elements. A plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in
fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the
defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision. To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must
show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Judge Feinerman finds that Kronos's alleged violation of Section
15(a)'s destruction duty nonetheless fails to confer standing for
the 15(a) claim. Kronos's alleged failure to follow retention and
destruction guidelines presents a risk of harm and cannot establish
standing without a particularized allegation that such retention
poses a real risk of harm to the Plaintiffs.
First, nothing suggests that Kronos's alleged failure to comply
with BIPA's formal requirements made it an especially risky
information holder. Second, the Plaintiffs do not explain how
Kronos' dissemination of their biometric information transforms its
failure to follow a retention and destruction policy into a
concrete injury. And, third, the Plaintiffs do not allege a
sufficiently concrete risk that their information could be leaked
or disclosed as a result of Kronos's wrongful retention thereof.
Even if the consequences of disclosure would be graver, that does
not remove the case from Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.'s
reach.
Judge Feinerman concludes that the District Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Section 15(a) claim. When
a case is filed in state court and removed to federal court, and
when the federal court finds that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the appropriate disposition (with narrow exceptions
not pertinent) is a remand to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Section 15(a) claim is
severed under Civil Rule 21 from the rest of the suit and remanded
to state court, Judge Feinerman rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/34v9Ty8 from Leagle.com.
LAKEWOOD HEALTHCARE: Curry Sues Over Nurse Assistants' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKISHA CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKEWOOD HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS CENTRE, LP
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV39974
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 16, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
Private Attorney's General Act including failure to provide the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees required meal
and rest periods, failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked, failure to timely pay wages
during employment and upon termination, failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
certified nurse assistant in or around November 2018.
Lakewood Healthcare and Wellness Centre, LP is a rehabilitation
center located in Downey, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
Neil M. Larsen, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
nlarsen@maternlawgroup.com
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Family Trust Sues Over 4.2% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE DANIELS FAMILY 2001 REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAS VEGAS SANDS
CORP., SHELDON G. ADELSON, and PATRICK DUMONT, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01958 (D. Nev., October 22, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made misleading and
false statements with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding Las Vegas Sands' business, operational,
and compliance policies to attract investors and to artificially
inflate the prices of Las Vegas Sands securities between February
27, 2016 and September 15, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) weaknesses existed in Marina Bay
Sands' casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (ii)
the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone to illicit fund
transfers that implicated, among other issues, the transfer of
customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential breaches in
the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing
foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the Company,
as well as investigation and increased oversight by regulatory
authorities; (iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure
controls and procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues
were untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
When the truth emerged about the Company's business operations, Las
Vegas Sands' stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 4.2%, to close at
$49.67 per share on September 16, 2020.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Las Vegas Sands Corp. is an American casino and resort company,
with principal executive offices located at 3355 Las Vegas
Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
- and –
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: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
8240 Beverly Blvd., Suite 9
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Facing Securities Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company has been named
as a defendant in a proposed securities class action filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec (District of Terrebonne, Province of
Quebec, Canada).
On October 13, 2020, the Company, Loop Canada Inc. and certain of
their officers and directors were named as defendants in a proposed
securities class action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec
(District of Terrebonne, Province of Quebec, Canada), in file no.
700-06-000012-205.
The Application for authorization of a class action and for
authorization to bring an action pursuant to section 225.4 of the
Quebec Securities Act was filed by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and a class of buyers who purchased the Company
securities during the "Class Period" (not defined).
Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning the Company's technology,
business model, operations and prospects, thus causing the
Company's stock price to be artificially inflated and thereby
causing plaintiff to suffer damages.
Plaintiff seeks damages stemming from losses he claims to have
suffered as a result of the foregoing.
Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne,
Canada.
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Facing Tremblay Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company has been named
a defendant in a purported class action suit entitled, Olivier
Tremblay, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita, and Nelson
Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-0838
On October 13, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Olivier Tremblay, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita,
and Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-0838.
The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which
caused the Company's securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices.
Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Loop’s securities between September 24, 2018 and October 12,
2020.
Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne,
Canada.
LYFE PRODUCTIVES: Faces Fuller Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
DILLON FULLER, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. LYFE PRODUCTIVES, LLC; ISAAC BROWN; DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV39378 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 14, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including willful
misclassification of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated workers as independent contractors, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages upon
termination, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation, improper wage statements, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to maintain records, and unfair business
practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a content manager
in Burbank, California from November 2017 until May 2020.
Lyfe Productives, LLC is a social marketing and education firm
focused on product development, with its principal place of
business located in Burbank, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arin Norijanian, Esq.
James H. Demerjian, Esq.
ARIN | JAMES LLP
100 North Brand Blvd., Suite 620
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 476-0133
Facsimile: (818) 230-5243
E-mail: arin@arinjames.com
james@arinjames.com
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Manning Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2020, that appeal in the Manning
putative class action suit remains pending.
On June 13, 2019, current Micron employee Chris Manning filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject
to the Idaho Wage Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus
after the conclusion of 2018 whose performance rating was
calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range of
performance ratings.
On July 12, 2019, Manning and three other Company employees filed
an amended complaint as putative class action representatives.
On behalf of themselves and the putative class, Manning and the
three other plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Idaho
Wage Claim Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and fraud.
On June 24, 2020, the court entered judgment in favor of Micron
based on the statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on July 23, 2020.
Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.
NEW YORK: Young Sues Over School Aides' Delayed Wage Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08564 (S.D.N.Y., October 14,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to timely pay wages on
scheduled paydays.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since
approximately 2007. He is currently a school aide at Fiorello H.
LaGuardia High School, New York, New York.
The New York City Department of Education is a government
department that manages the city's public school system. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
James E. Murphy, Esq.
Rachel R. Feingold, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
ON THE BARRELHEAD: Teblum TCPA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DARYL TEBLUM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ON THE BARRELHEAD, INC., Case No.
20-CA-5952, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on October 14,
2020.
The Clerk Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 2:20-cv-00818 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and
Class members using an automated telephone dialing system in an
attempt to market its goods, property and/or services.
On the Barrelhead, Inc. is a management consulting services company
based in Durango, Colorado. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ian M. Ross, Esq.
Jorge A. Perez Santiago, Esq.
STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 614-1400
Facsimile: (305) 614-1425
E-mail: iross@sfslaw.com
docketing@sfslaw.com
ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Sends Unsolicited Text Ads, Johnson Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02017-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 14, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated persons using an automatic telephone dialing
system in an attempt to market its services. The Plaintiff and
Class members did not give prior express consent for the Defendant
to call or text their cellular telephone numbers.
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff's and
Class members' privacy was invaded.
One Technologies, LLC is a provider of online advertising services,
with its principal address located at 8144 Walnut Hill Lane #600,
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and –
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: YZelman@MarcusZelman.com
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Pintec Technology
Holdings Limited. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
Pintec Technology Holdings Limited
This lawsuit is on behalf of shareholders who purchased PT
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2018
initial public offering.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Pintec Technology Holdings Limited. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company erroneously
recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net
basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) there were material
weaknesses in Pintec's internal control over financial reporting
related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to
Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing
transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal 2017
and 2018 had been misstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pintec-technology-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=9771&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
PP&G INC: Faces Butler Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUITA BUTLER, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PP&G, INC. d/b/a NORMA JEAN'S
NIGHTCLUB and GARRETT M. MILLION, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03084-RDB (D. Md., October 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated exotic dancers the
required minimum wage rate, illegally taking their tips, and
failing to pay all wages due upon termination of employment.
The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at the Defendants' adult
entertainment club in Baltimore, Maryland from March 2019 until
August 2019.
PP&G, Inc., d/b/a Norma Jean's Nightclub, is an adult entertainment
club operator located at 10 Custom House Avenue, Baltimore,
Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Suvita Melehy, Esq.
MELEHY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
8403 Colesville Road Suite 610
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-6364
Facsimile: (301) 587-6308
E-mail: smelehy@melehylaw.com
- and –
David W. Hodges, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dghodges@hftrialfirm.com
PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Distribution to Begin Soon
------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court-approved
settlement payments to class members in Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, are expected to be distributed by the claims
administrator in late 2020 or early 2021.
On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and three of its current and former
officers.
On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
in the lawsuit.
The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries,
Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly,
asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of the Company
between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018.
The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. The parties
reached a settlement in principal on May 1, 2019.
On June 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed with the Court a Petition for
Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement, including the
proposed settlement amount of $25 million.
On November 22, 2019, the Court entered final judgment approving
the settlement.
PPG's insurance carriers fully funded the settlement escrow account
and the court-approved settlement payments to class members are
expected to be distributed by the claims administrator in late 2020
or early 2021.
PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials worldwide. The company was founded in 1883
and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
RADNET INC: Fails to Protect Employees' PII, Pfeiffer Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOREEN PFEIFFER, JOSE CONTRERAS and SUSAN WRIGHT, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RADNET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-09553-RGK-SK (C.D. Cal.,
October 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence and breach of implied contract, and for violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer
Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to meet its
obligation to protect the sensitive personal identifying
information (PII) entrusted to it by their current and former
employees, including the Plaintiffs, following a data breach on its
server on July 18, 2020. The Defendant's failure to implement a
reasonable and appropriate data security allowed an unknown third
party to access confidential information including employee names,
social security numbers, driver's license numbers, and additional
data such as dates of birth, addresses, and passport numbers.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class are now at much higher
risk of identity theft and for cybercrimes of all kinds.
RadNet, Inc. is a provider of outpatient imaging, with its
principal place of business located in Los Angeles, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
James M. Davis, 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: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
jdavis@cglaw.com
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Turizo TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, Case No.
CACE2001606225, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 19,
2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-62129-RKA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Redbox Automated Retail, LLC is an American and Canadian video
rental company, with its principal place of business located in
Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawren A. Zann, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 527-2427
Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
E-mail: lawren.zann@gmlaw.com
- and –
Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq.
Margaret M. Schuchardt, Esq.
Tamra Miller, Esq.
JASZCZUK P.C.
30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 442-0509
Facsimile: (312) 442-0519
E-mail: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com
mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com
tmiller@jaszczuk.com
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit entitled, Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid
Corp.
The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.
A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was
consolidated with this lawsuit in November, 2019.
The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated
to charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and
customary" price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company
failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.
Rite Aid said, "At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is
not able to either predict the outcome or estimate a potential
range of loss and is defending itself against these claims."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates
through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite
Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.
ROBERTSON'S READY: Thomas Suit Alleges Improper Wages for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN THOMAS, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general, Plaintiff v. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV40081 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 19, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act arising from their failure to pay wages
including overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods or
provide compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay all wages
earned and owed upon separation, and failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt driver
from approximately July 2019 until May 2020.
Robertson's Ready Mix, Ltd. is a manufacturer of cement concrete
based in Corona, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: COVID-19 Related Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is a
defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by a
shareholder alleging misrepresentations relating to COVID-19.
On October 7, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the company and certain officers, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
alleging misrepresentations relating to COVID-19 in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified
exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020.
The company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit
at this time, although the company believes the claims are without
merit.
Royal Caribbean said, "Depending on how the case progresses, it
could be costly to defend and could divert the attention of
management and other resources from operations. Accordingly, even
if ultimately resolved in our favor, this action could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and liquidity."
Headquartered in Miami, Florida, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
operates as a global cruise company operating a fleet of vessels in
the cruise vacation industries.
SATELLITE COUNTRY: Theriot May Partially Testify in Prejean Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER PREJEAN, on behalf of Himself and Other
Persons Similarly Situated, v. SATELLITE COUNTRY, INC., ET AL,
Civil Action No. 17-1170 (W.D. La.), Judge Terry A. Doughty of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division, granted in part and denied in part Defendants
Satellite Country and Lynn Jenkins' Motion to Exclude Report and
Testimony of John W. Theriot.
On Sept. 14, 2017, Prejean, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a Collective Action Complaint against
Satellite Country, Pamela McCue, and Lynn Jenkins, asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for alleged
failure to pay overtime compensation.
On April 17, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the matter as
a Collective Action, and approximately 48 Plaintiffs have joined
Prejean in the litigation. After motion practice, Pamela McCue was
dismissed as a Defendant. Prejean's claims against Satellite
Country and Jenkins remain pending. The trial is set for Dec. 7,
2020.
Prejean and the other class members worked as satellite technicians
who performed work orders on behalf of DISH Network, LLC for
Satellite Country. At trial, if the satellite technicians are
determined to have been employees of Satellite Country, the jury
will be charged with determining the amount of damages due to them.
To assess damages, the jury will need to determine the hours
worked by all the Plaintiffs. Prejean has retained Theriot, a CPA,
to calculate the damages allegedly owed to all the Plaintiffs.
In April 2019, Theriot issued a Preliminary Report. In the
introduction, Theriot states that the Plaintiffs were hired to work
for Satellite Country as Technicians, and at all times, were
non-exempt employees and eligible to receive overtime pay pursuant
to Section 2017 of FLSA. The Plaintiffs were employed by Satellite
Country and were not paid for all hours worked and also were not
paid appropriate overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek as require by the FLSA. Additionally, Satellite
Country makes improper deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages
causing them to be paid less than statutory minimum and overtime
wage required by FLSA. As a result, Satellite Country violates the
minimum and overtime wage provisions of the FLSA.
Theriot bases his summary on the Collective Action Complaint. In
order to perform his wage calculations, Theriot relied on "Fact
Sheet #23," which was issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the
United States Department of Labor. To calculate wages for the
applicable time period, Theriot used weekly check stubs, the "Tech
Install Sheet," and the 1099's. He then created a table for the
Plaintiffs for whom he had information.
On June 4, 2019, Theriot issued an Addendum to his report, which
contained calculations for three of the Plaintiffs and updated
calculations for two additional Plaintiffs.
Defendants Satellite Country and Jenkins move to exclude the report
and testimony of Theriot. They move to exclude Theriot's reports
on three bases: (1) He is not qualified to give the "opinions"
contained in the summary at the beginning of his Preliminary
Report; (2) His methodology in calculating unpaid wages and
liquidated damages is flawed; and (3) His presentation to the jury
as an expert in the calculation of FLSA damages would confuse the
jury and is highly prejudicial to the Defendants.
Prejean opposes the motion. He responds that Theriot is qualified
to offer testimony that (1) is well grounded in the facts of this
matter, (2) based on his respective education, training, expertise
and experience, which will (3) unquestionably be helpful to the
fact-finder in the matter, and (4) which is beyond the
comprehension of the average lay person.
First, as an initial matter, to the extent that the Defendants move
to exclude Theriot's "report," Judge Doughty will grant the motion.
Absent stipulation, Prejean will need to present Theriot's
testimony at trial, and his report will not be received in
evidence.
Second, to the extent that the Defendants move to exclude Theriot's
"opinions" in the summary at the Background section of his
Preliminary Report, the Defendants' motion will be granted.
Theriot has not been offered as an FLSA expert, and, more
importantly, he clearly identifies in a footnote that the
statements are all derived from the allegations contained in the
Complaint. They are not opinions at all and are not to be offered
at trial.
However, the Judge must also consider whether Theriot's opinions
are relevant and reliable on the amount of damages/overtime wages
allegedly owed the class action Plaintiffs. He considers
reliability first. He finds that Theriot's opinions will assist
the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.
While the calculations themselves are not difficult, Theriot
expended hours analyzing various sources of information spanning a
large number of pages. His review and synthesis of a large volume
of complex documents and information will be helpful to the trier
of fact. Allowing Theriot to utilize his specialized knowledge and
experience to calculate figures from different sources and
synthesize his results will aid the trier of fact in ascertaining
Prejean's and the other class action Plaintiffs' alleged damages.
Finally, the Judge has considered whether Theriot's testimony will
cause undue prejudice to Defendants and should be excluded under
Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The Judge holds that the trier of
fact may be equally likely to conclude that testimony that the
Plaintiffs worked 70 hours per week every week and seek such a
large amount of damages is simply not credible and render a
judgment accordingly. The Court is not permitted and will not
engage in credibility determinations to exclude this testimony.
The Defendants remain free to challenge Theriot's calculations and
the bases for those calculations through vigorous cross
examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful
instruction on the burden of proof.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Doughty granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of
John W. Theriot. To the extent that the Defendants move to exclude
Theriot's report, the motion is granted. Theriot will testify at
trial, and his report will not be received in evidence. Further to
the extent that Defendants move to exclude any testimony by Theriot
consistent with the summary in his preliminary report, the motion
is also granted. Theriot clearly states in a footnote that the
information was taken from Prejean's Complaint and is not his
"opinions." The motion is otherwise denied, and Theriot will be
permitted to testify on the wage and damages calculations he
performed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2020 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://is.gd/VYNvoQ from Leagle.com.
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ALLAN ARANGO, MATTHEW CIPRICH, and ANDY BLASS
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01056839-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on October 16, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01998-JVS-JDE to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the
minimum wage rate, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime
and all time worked, failure to provide required meal periods or
pay meal period premium wages, failure to provide required rest
periods, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements,
failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failure
to timely pay all earned wages due at the time of separation of
employment.
Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services
company, with its principal place of business located at 300
Schlumberger Drive, Sugar Land, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC
4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Ste. A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4243
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Arango Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ALLAN ARANGO, MATTHEW CIPRICH, and ANDY BLASS
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2019-01056839-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on October 16, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-09488 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the
minimum wage rate, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime
and all time worked, failure to provide required meal periods or
pay meal period premium wages, failure to provide required rest
periods, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements,
failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failure
to timely pay all earned wages due at the time of separation of
employment.
Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services
company, with its principal place of business located at 300
Schlumberger Drive, Sugar Land, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC
4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Ste. A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4243
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
SNAP INC: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that a hearing for preliminary
approval of the agreement by the state court has been scheduled for
October 2020.
Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for its initial public offering
(IPO) were named as defendants in securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's Class
A common stock, alleging violation of securities laws that arose
following our IPO.
On January 17, 2020, the company reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the securities class actions. The preliminary settlement
agreement was signed in January 2020 and provided for a resolution
of all of the pending claims in the securities class actions for
$187.5 million.
The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the federal
court in April 2020, and a hearing for preliminary approval of the
agreement by the state court has been scheduled for October 2020.
Snap said, "In the fourth quarter of 2019, we recorded legal
expense, net of amounts directly covered by insurance, of $100.0
million for the expected settlement of the stockholder actions
since we concluded the loss was probable and estimable. The amount
was recorded in general and administrative expense in our
consolidated statements of operations."
Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.
SOCIETY INSURANCE: T & J's Suit Moved From N.D. Ind. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled T & J's 5TH DOWN, INC. d/b/a KAYSAN'S 5TH DOWN BAR
& GRILL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
SOCIETY INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00308, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on October 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06153 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by
denying insurance claims of the Plaintiff and Class members for
business income losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
T & J's 5th Down, Inc., d/b/a Kaysan's 5th Down Bar & Grill, is a
restaurant and bar owner and operator located at 5830 Challenger
Parkway, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Society Insurance, A Mutual Company, is an insurance provider, with
its principal place of business located at in Fond du Lac,
Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Truitt, Esq.
Richard T. Truitt, Esq.
TRUITT LAW OFFICES
2855 Northpark Avenue, Suite 107
Huntington, IN 46750
Telephone: (260) 356-5066
Facsimile: (260) 356-7313
E-mail: p.truitt@truittlawoffices.com
r.truitt@truittlawoffices.com
d.brophy@truittlawoffices.com
- and –
Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
865 South Dixie Drive
Vandalia, OH 45377
Telephone: (937) 435-7500
Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com
- and –
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Rudy Gonzalez, Esq.
Marion M. Reilly, Esq.
R. Allan Pixton, Esq.
Alex Hilliard
HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES, LLP
719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
marion@hmglawfirm.com
HMGService@hmglawfirm.com
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Wiseguys Pizzeria Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WISEGUYS PIZZERIA & PUB LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01340, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on October 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06159 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by
denying insurance coverage claims of the Plaintiff and Class
members for business losses incurred in connection with the
government's closure orders in connection with the COVID-19
pandemic.
Wiseguys Pizzeria & Pub LLC is an owner and operator of a pizza and
pub-style restaurant in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Society Insurance is a mutual insurance company, with its principal
place of business located in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2302
E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and –
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
Frederick Longer, Esq.
Daniel Levin, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, L.L.P.
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
lberman@lfsblaw.com
flonger@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and –
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
Paul W. Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
STANLEY LEWIS: Turner Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Fraudulent IRS Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTEL TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STANLEY LEWIS PLUMBING & HEATING CORP and
ALEX LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04931 (E.D.N.Y., October
14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failing to
provide a wage notice and proper wage statements, and filing
fraudulent information returns with the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service (IRS).
Mr. Turner was employed by the Defendants as a mechanic's helper,
sprinkler inspector and cleaner in New York from approximately
January 3, 2017 to July 27, 2020.
Stanley Lewis Plumbing & Heating Corp is a plumbing and heating
service provider, with its principal place of business located at
749 Prospect Place, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 825-1400
E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com
STERLING BANCORP: Bid to Nix Okla. Police Retirement Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the complaint
in the shareholder class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, remains pending.
The Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and other parties have been named as defendants in a
shareholder class action captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, filed on February 26, 2020 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2020.
This action alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
primarily with respect to disclosures concerning the Bank's
residential lending practices that were made in the Company's
registration statement and prospectus for its initial public
offering, in subsequent press releases, in periodic and other
filings with the SEC, and during earnings calls.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint with
the court on September 22, 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this and any related
actions.
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is a unitary thrift holding company
headquartered in Southfield, Michigan and its primary business is
the operation of its wholly owned subsidiary, Sterling Bank.
Through Sterling Bank, the offers a range of loan products to the
residential and commercial markets, as well as retail banking
services.
STERLING BANCORP: Bid to Nix Oklahoma Police Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss in the
shareholder class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, is pending.
The Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and other parties have been named as defendants in a
shareholder class action captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.
This action alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
primarily with respect to disclosures concerning the Bank's
residential lending practices that were made in the Company's
registration statement and prospectus for its initial public
offering, in subsequent press releases, in periodic and other
filings with the SEC, and during earnings calls.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint with
the court on September 22, 2020.
The company will continue to incur legal fees in connection with
this and potentially other cases, including expenses for the
reimbursement of legal fees of present and former officers and
directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of
continuing to defend such litigation may be significant.
Sterling said, "We intend to defend this lawsuit, and any related
actions, vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be
successful in any defense. If the case is decided adversely, we may
be liable for significant damages directly or under our
indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our
business, results of operations and cash flows."
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. of Michigan provides banking services. The
Bank offers commercial, business, and consumer banking products and
services, as well as provides deposits, loans, wealth management,
and other financing services. Sterling Bancorp serves customers in
the United States. The company is based in Southfield, Michigan.
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Pet Parade Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PET PARADE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STOKES HEALTHCARE, INC., doing business as
EPICUR PHARMA, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-24279-UU (S.D. Fla.,
October 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent multiple
unsolicited fax advertisements to the Plaintiff and Class members
without the mandated opt-out notice and without having an
established business relationship.
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered actual harm including an invasion of a
legally protected interest and interfere with their legitimate
business enterprise.
Stokes Healthcare, Inc., doing business as Epicur Pharma, is a
pharmacy located in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
- and –
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Appeal in Stichting Depositary Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal in the
class action suit headed by Stichting Depositary APG Developed
Markets Equity Pool is still pending.
On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v.
Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company
and two of its officers.
The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and
private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018.
The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.
On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative
class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting
a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with
statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1,
2017 note offering.
The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to
the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and
November 1, 2018.
The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional
Company officers, the Company's board of directors, and the
underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering.
The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed
Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al.
On March 26, 2020, the District Court recaptioned the case In re
Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation and on March 31, 2020,
the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.
On April 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the decision
to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Settlement in TCPA Suit Wins Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has
entered an order preliminarily approving the class action
settlement in the consolidated cases, Campbell et al. v. Synchrony
Bank and Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank.
The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act as a result of phone calls made by the
Bank.
The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company
placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system
or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without
specifying an aggregate amount.
Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on
April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.
Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.
On October 2, 2020, Synchrony entered an agreement to resolve the
Campbell and Neal lawsuits, which had been consolidated before the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, on a class basis.
On October 19, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the class action settlement.
Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On October 8, 2020, Synchrony entered an agreement to resolve the
Mott lawsuit on an individual basis.
Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.
TA OPERATING: Chandler Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY CHANDLER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TA OPERATING LLC, d/b/a TRAVELCENTERS
OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 195436, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Shasta to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on October 19, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-at-01027 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged labor law violations
including failure to pay lawful wages owed, failure to provide
lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to timely pay wages due at termination, knowing and
intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, and
violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
TA Operating LLC, d/b/a TravelCenters of America, is a company that
owns and operates gasoline service stations, with its principal
place of business located in Ohio. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Talya Z. Friedman, Esq.
Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Talya.Friedman@jacksonlewis.com
Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
TAIHO CORPORATION: Boley Sues Over Retaliation & Wrongful Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL BOLEY, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. TAIHO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, c/o CT
Corporation System, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02378 (N.D. Ohio,
October 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged termination of the
Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for taking FMLA medical
leave. A human resource representative (HR) of the Defendant coded
his FMLA leave for two days as a no call, no show and used it as a
basis for his termination. Despite HR's assertion that they did not
know how to code the Plaintiff as being on FMLA medical leave, HR
had properly coded his FMLA medical leave for the previous eight
weeks.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator
from approximately December 2016 to July 2020.
Taiho Corporation of America is a manufacturer of motor vehicle
parts and accessories, with its principal place of business located
at 194 Heritage Drive, Tiffin, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
TECHSERV CONSULTING: Hartman FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DANA HARTMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TECHSERV CONSULTING AND TRAINING,
LTD.; JOHNNY RANDALL STAINES; and RANDALL WISENBAKER, Case No.
2:20-cv-04055, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on October 21, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02386-JGC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
TechServ Consulting and Training Ltd. is a limited liability
company that provides consulting and services to the utility
industry, with its principal place of business in Tyler, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Blind Can't Access Website, Bishop Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TELADOC HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08763 (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Web site,
https://teladochealth.com/, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Web site. These access barriers include, but not limited to:
(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.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons.
Teladoc Health, Inc., is an online health care provider, with its
principal executive office located at 2 Manhattanville Road, Suite
203, Purchase, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
TSR INC: Stipulation in Paskowitz Class Suit Wins Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
TSR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2020, that the Court has entered an order preliminarily approving
the Stipulation in the class action suit initiated by Susan
Paskowitz,
On October 16, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed
on October 11, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Queens County, by Susan Paskowitz, a stockholder of the Company,
against the Company; Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes;
former directors Christopher Hughes, Raymond A. Roel, Brian J.
Mangan, Regina Dowd, James J. Hill, William Kelly, and Eric Stein;
as well as stockholders Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc.
and Fintech Consulting LLC (the "Stockholder Litigation").
The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit asserting
claims on behalf of all minority stockholders of the Company. Ms.
Paskowitz alleges the following: the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes of an aggregate of 819,491 shares of the
Company's common stock ("controlling interest") to Zeff Capital,
L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC was in breach
of Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes' fiduciary duties and
to the detriment of the Company's minority stockholders; the former
members of the Board of Directors of the Company named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to immediately
adopt a rights plan that would have prevented Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes from selling their shares and preserved a higher
premium for all stockholders; Zeff, QAR, and Fintech are "partners"
and constitute a "group."
Ms. Paskowitz also asserts that Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries,
Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC aided and abetted Joseph F.
Hughes’ and Winifred M. Hughes' conduct, and ultimately sought to
buy out the remaining shares of the Company at an unfair price.
On June 14, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed an amended complaint in the
Stockholder Litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Queens County against the members of the Board of Directors
and Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting
LLC, which asserts substantially similar allegations to those
contained in the October 11, 2018 complaint, but omits Regina Dowd,
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes as defendants.
In addition to the former members of the Board of Directors named
in the original complaint, the amended complaint names former
directors Ira Cohen, Joseph Pennacchio, and William Kelly as
defendants.
The amended complaint also asserts a derivative claim purportedly
on behalf of the Company against the named former members of the
Board of Directors. The amended complaint seeks declaratory
judgment and unspecified monetary damages.
The complaint requests: (1) a declaration from the court that the
former members of the Board of Directors named in the complaint
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to timely adopt a
stockholder rights plan, which resulted in the loss of the ability
to auction the Company off to the highest bidder without
interference from Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and
Fintech Consulting LLC; (2) damages derivatively on behalf of the
Company for unspecified harm caused by the former Directors’
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (3) damages and equitable
relief derivatively on behalf of the Company for the former
Directors' alleged failure to adopt proper corporate governance
practices; and (4) damages and injunctive relief against Zeff
Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC
based on their knowing dissemination of false or misleading public
statements concerning their status as a group. The complaint has
not assigned any monetary values to alleged damages.
On July 15, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint in the Stockholder Litigation and cross-claims against
Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC
for breaches of their fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duties, and indemnification and contribution
based on their misappropriation of material nonpublic information
and their failure to disclose complete and accurate information in
SEC filings concerning their group actions to attempt a creeping
takeover of the Company, which was thereafter amended on July 26,
2019.
In addition, on December 21, 2018, the Company filed a complaint in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff,
QAR Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC,
and Tajuddin Haslani for violations of the disclosure and
anti-fraud requirements of the federal securities laws under
Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), and the related rules and regulations promulgated
by the SEC, for failing to disclose to the Company and its
stockholders their formation of a group and the group’s intention
to seize control of the Company (the "SDNY Action").
The complaint requests that the court, among other things, declare
that the defendants have solicited proxies without filing timely,
accurate and complete reports on Schedule 13D and Schedule 14A in
violation of Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, direct
the defendants to file with the SEC complete and accurate
disclosures, enjoin the defendants from voting any of their shares
prior to such time as complete and accurate disclosures have been
filed, and enjoin the defendants from further violations of the
Exchange Act with respect to the securities of the Company.
On January 7, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed a related action against
Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff, QAR
Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC, and
Tajuddin Haslani in the Southern District of New York, which
asserts claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and under
federal securities laws similar to those asserted in the Company's
action. Although the Company is not a party to Ms. Paskowitz's
action, the court has determined to treat the Company's and Ms.
Paskowitz's respective actions as related.
On August 7, 2019, following the Company's initial rescheduling of
the 2018 Annual Meeting for September 13, 2019 and the filing of
Preliminary Proxy Statements by the Company and Zeff Capital, L.P.,
Zeff Capital, L.P. filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company seeking an order requiring the Company
to hold its next annual meeting of stockholders on or around
September 13, 2019, and obligating the Company to elect Class I and
Class III directors at that annual meeting.
On August 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion for preliminary
injunction in the SDNY Action in advance of the Company's 2018
Annual Meeting originally scheduled for September 13, 2019, and
requested leave to file a motion for expedited discovery.
The Court denied the Company's motion for preliminary injunction
but ordered Zeff to "make clear that the second set of directors"
described by Zeff in its preliminary proxy statement "is contingent
upon the resolution of a proceeding in Delaware Chancery Court."
On August, 30, 2019, the Company entered into the Settlement
Agreement with the Investor Parties with respect to the proxy
contest pertaining to the election of directors at the 2018 Annual
Meeting, which was held on October 22, 2019. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to forever settle and
resolve any and all disputes between the parties, including without
limitation disputes arising out of or relating to the following
litigations:
(i) The complaint relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
filed on November 1, 2018 by Fintech Consulting LLC against the
Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which was previously
dismissed voluntarily;
(ii) The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief for
violations of the federal securities laws filed on December 21,
2018 by the Company against the Investor Parties in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York;
(iii) Cross-claims relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
and for indemnification and contribution filed on July 26, 2019 by
the Company against the Investor Parties in New York Supreme Court,
Queens County; and
(iv) The complaint to compel annual meeting of stockholders filed
on August 7, 2019 by Zeff Capital, L.P. against the Company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
No party admitted any liability by entering into the Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement did not resolve the Stockholder
Litigation filed by Susan Paskowitz against the Company, Joseph F.
Hughes, Winifred M. Hughes and certain former directors of the
Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on October
11, 2018.
Concurrently with the Settlement Agreement, the parties entered
into a share repurchase agreement (the "Repurchase Agreement")
which provided for the purchase by the Company and Christopher
Hughes, the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer,
of the shares of the Company's Common Stock held by the Investor
Parties (the "Repurchase"). The Settlement Agreement also
contemplated that, if the Repurchase was completed, the Company
would make a settlement payment to the Investor Parties at the
closing of the Repurchase in an amount of approximately $1,500,000
(the "Settlement Payment"). However, the Repurchase and Settlement
Payment were not completed by the deadline of December 30, 2019.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (1) the Company agreed to
adopt an amendment to the Company's Amended and Restated By-Laws,
dated April 9, 2015 (the "By-Laws Amendment"), providing that
stockholders of the Company owning at least forty percent (40%) of
the issued and outstanding Common Stock may request a special
meeting of stockholders; (2) the Investor Parties agreed not to
take any action to call or otherwise cause a special meeting of
stockholders to occur prior to December 30, 2019 (unless the
Company had failed to hold the 2018 Annual Meeting); (3) the
Company agreed to amend and restate the Company's Rights Agreement,
dated August 29, 2018 (the "Amended Rights Agreement"), to confirm
that a Distribution Date (as defined in the Amended Rights
Agreement) shall not occur as a result of any request by any of the
Investor Parties for a special meeting; (4) the Company agreed that
prior to the earlier of (A) the completion of the Repurchase and
the payment of the Settlement Payment and (B) January 1, 2020, the
Board of Directors shall not consist of more than seven (7)
directors.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the two nominees
for director made by Zeff Capital, L.P. were elected as directors
at the Company's 2018 Annual Meeting held on October 22, 2019.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, inasmuch as the
Repurchase was not completed and the Settlement Payment was not
made by December 30, 2019, the members of the Board of Directors
(other than the two directors who were nominated by Zeff Capital,
L.P. and elected as directors at the 2018 Annual Meeting) resigned
from the Board effective 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 30,
2019. Immediately thereafter, the two remaining directors appointed
Robert Fitzgerald to the Board of Directors.
On October 21, 2019, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with Susan Paskowitz providing for the
settlement of the Stockholder Litigation filed by Ms. Paskowitz on
October 11, 2018. The MOU provides for the settlement of the claims
by Ms. Paskowitz that (1) the former members of the Board named in
the original complaint allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to immediately adopt a rights plan that would have
prevented the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes of an
aggregate of 819,491 shares of the Company's common stock to the
Investor Parties; (2) the former members of the Board named in the
amended complaint allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and
failed to adopt proper corporate governance practices; and (3) the
Investor Parties acted as "partners" and constituted a "group" in
their purchase of shares from Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M.
Hughes and knowingly disseminated false or misleading public
statements concerning their status as a group.
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the Company will (1) implement
certain corporate governance reforms described in the MOU within 30
days of a final order and judgment entered by the court, and keep
these corporate governance reforms in place for 5 years from the
time of the final order and judgment; and (2) acknowledge that the
plaintiff, Ms. Paskowitz, and her counsel provided a substantial
benefit to the Company and its stockholders through the prosecution
of the Stockholder Litigation and other related actions filed by
Ms. Paskowitz described above.
On December 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") with Susan Paskowitz in
the Stockholder Litigation. The Stipulation retains the terms and
conditions of settlement of the Stockholder Litigation contained in
the MOU described in the preceding paragraph, with the addition
that the Company will pay to plaintiff's counsel an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$260,000 (collectively, the "Stockholder Litigation Settlement").
The Stockholder Litigation Settlement is intended to fully,
finally, and forever compromise, settle, release, resolve, and
dismiss with prejudice the Stockholder Litigation and all claims
asserted therein directly against all present and former defendants
and derivatively against them on behalf of the Company. The
Stockholder Litigation Settlement does not contain any admission of
liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties, and
provides for mutual releases by all parties. Each stockholder of
the Company is a member of the plaintiff class unless such
stockholder opts out of the class.
The Company expects that the full amount of the $260,000 settlement
payment will be covered by insurance proceeds. The Stipulation
remains subject to approval by the court. The Stipulation is
independent of the Settlement Agreement and Share Repurchase
Agreement that the Company had entered into with the Investor
Parties.
On December 24, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz moved for preliminary approval
of the Stipulation. On May 21, 2020, the Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the Stipulation. The parties have agreed on
a proposed scheduling order for final approval of the Stipulation
and a proposed mailing notice of the stipulation to TSR
stockholders, which are both currently pending Court approval.
TSR said, "If approved, the Court will set a settlement hearing for
final approval of the Stipulation. Although the Company believes
that the Stipulation represents a fair and reasonable compromise of
the matters in dispute in the Stockholder Litigation, there can be
no assurance that the court will approve the Stipulation as
proposed, or at all."
TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. TSR, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge,
New York.
ULTA SALON: Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JAMIE JONES, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS, & FRAGRANCE, INC.,
Case No. 2020-02939-CT, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Chester County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 19, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-05198 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law (WCPL). The Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and the purported class, seeks recovery of damages for
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and expenses of this class
action, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. is an American chain of
beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq.
Brandon R. Sher, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 995-2840
Facsimile: (215) 995-2801
E-mail: jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com
brandon.sher@ogletree.com
UNCLE MARIO'S: Quic Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Pizzeria Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSEAS QUIC (A.K.A. BRAYAN), CARLOS CHICOJ MEJIA, JAVIER HERNANDEZ,
RUBEN GONZALEZ CRUZ, and LUIS RONALDO SUY IGNACIO, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNCLE MARIO'S
BRICK OVEN PIZZA LLC (D/B/A UNCLE MARIO'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA),
DOMENICO ABITINO, and DAVID CORTEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-08712 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay spread of hours
premium, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, unlawful tip deductions, and
failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery workers,
food preparers, dishwashers, and pizza makers at Uncle Mario's
Brick Oven Pizza located at 739 9th Avenue, New York, New York, at
various times, between 2015 and 2020.
Uncle Mario's Brick Oven Pizza LLC is an owner and operator of a
pizzeria restaurant under the name Uncle Mario's Brick Oven Pizza
in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
UNIT CORP: Agreement Reached to Settle Cockerell Oil Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that an agreement to settle
the class action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v.
Unit Petroleum Company, has been reached.
On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.
The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.
The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay
interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Plaintiff is
seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working interest owners in
the company's Oklahoma wells.
In August 2020, Unit Petroleum Company reached an agreement to
settle two of the three class actions. Under the settlement, Unit
Petroleum Company agreed to recognize class proof of claims in the
amount of $15.75 million for Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd. vs.
Unit Petroleum Company, and $29.25 million in Chieftain Royalty
Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company.
This settlement is subject to certain conditions, including
approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division in Case No. 20-32740 under the
caption In re Unit Corporation, et al.
Under the Company's (including joint debtor Unit Petroleum Company)
approved plan or reorganization, these settlements will be treated
as allowed class claims of general unsecured creditors.
The settlement amounts will be satisfied by distribution of the
plaintiffs' proportionate share of New Common Stock of the of the
reorganized Company.
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNIT CORP: Deal Reached to Settle Chieftain Royalty Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that an agreement to settle
the class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit
Petroleum Company, has been reached.
On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.
Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay
royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are
or were royalty owners in the company's Oklahoma wells.
In August 2020, Unit Petroleum Company reached an agreement to
settle two of the three class actions. Under the settlement, Unit
Petroleum Company agreed to recognize class proof of claims in the
amount of $15.75 million for Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd. vs.
Unit Petroleum Company, and $29.25 million in Chieftain Royalty
Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company.
This settlement is subject to certain conditions, including
approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division in Case No. 20-32740 under the
caption In re Unit Corporation, et al. Under the Company's
(including joint debtor Unit Petroleum Company) approved plan or
reorganization, these settlements will be treated as allowed class
claims of general unsecured creditors.
The settlement amounts will be satisfied by distribution of the
plaintiffs' proportionate share of New Common Stock of the of the
reorganized Company.
Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and
Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
UNITED STATES: Class Action Challenges Eviction Moratorium Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Levine, Esq. -- jason.levine@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that the National Apartment
Association, along with several landlords, has challenged the order
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") that
imposed a nationwide moratorium on certain residential evictions.
This lawsuit follows one we previously covered, and could have a
major impact on the scope of federal power during the pandemic.
Refresher on the Moratorium and CDC Emergency Order
As we previously discussed, the CARES Act imposed a temporary
moratorium on certain residential evictions. On August 8, President
Trump directed executive agencies to "take all lawful measures to
prevent residential evictions and foreclosures resulting from
financial hardships caused by COVID-19," and he ordered the CDC and
the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") to consider
whether "temporarily halting residential evictions" was "reasonably
necessary to prevent further spread of COVID-19" between states.
In response, on September 4, the CDC issued an emergency order
imposing a nationwide moratorium on certain residential evictions
through December 31, 2020 ("CDC Order"). The CDC Order prevents the
eviction of any tenant who certifies that he or she satisfies
several financial hardship criteria. However, the Order does not
provide any compensation for landlords or property owners who are
prevented from evicting non-paying tenants.
The New Class Action
Following on the Tiger Lily case (discussed in our September 23
post), on September 18, a group of landlords and the National
Apartment Association filed Richard Lee Brown et al v. Alex Azar et
al., No. 1:20-cv-03702 (N.D. Ga.), a purported class action lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of the CDC Order. Plaintiffs also
seek a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the CDC
Order.
The Claims
Plaintiffs' key claims are very similar to those asserted in Tiger
Lily. The Amended Complaint asserts that the CDC Order was
promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,
violates landlords' right to due process and access to courts, is
unauthorized by the statute upon which it relies, and improperly
seeks both to displace state eviction laws and to "commandeer"
state resources to enforce its mandate. Unlike Tiger Lily,
Plaintiffs do not assert a Takings claim.
Our prior analysis is largely applicable to this new class action,
and it seems probable that the outcome will turn on the general
question of whether the scope of the CDC Order is consistent with
past practice and the intent underlying the federal statute on
which it purports to be based. The CDC's broad interpretation of
its power would arguably give the Executive the power to restrict
almost any type of activity, as applied to any "communicable"
disease. And the eviction moratorium is very different than
exemplary public health measures listed in the statute, perhaps
exceeding its intended scope.
Takeaways
Brown v. Azar has the potential to be quite significant regardless
of its outcome. It embodies the nationwide class action we
previously predicted might flow from Tiger Lily, and may generate
more class action tag-along cases, miring the CDC Order in a morass
of litigation akin to that involving the Paycheck Protection
Program "agent fee" litigation. The involvement of the National
Apartment Association, which has nearly 83,000 members managing
over 9.7 million rental homes in the United States, Canada, and the
United Kingdom, credentializes and raises the profile of this
matter as well.
As was true for Tiger Lily, success in this class action would
result not just in restoration the ability for the plaintiff
landlords to evict non-paying tenants, but it could yield important
clarifications and limits on the regulatory power of the federal
government in connection with the pandemic. If the CDC Order is
struck down, this could spur Congress to consider addressing
residential evictions directly again, either through another
statutory moratorium on evictions, or more stimulus payments for
struggling renters. For these reasons, Brown v. Azar is worth
watching. [GN]
VAXART INC: Himmelberg and Hovhannisyan Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that the court has ordered the
consolidation of the securities class action suits entitled,
Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. and Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc.
et al.
Two substantially similar securities class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
the first, titled Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on
August 24, 2020 (the "Himmelberg Action"), and the second action,
titled Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on September
1, 2020 (the "Hovhannisyan Action," and together, the "Putative
Class Actions").
On September 17, 2020, the court issued an order that the Putative
Class Actions were related and would proceed as one consolidated
action.
The Putative Class Actions both name as defendants certain of
Vaxart's current and former executive officers and directors, and
Armistice. The complaint claims two violations of federal civil
securities laws, violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, as against all
defendants; and violation of Section 20(A) of the Exchange Act, as
against all defendants except for Vaxart.
The Putative Class Actions allege defendants violated securities
laws by misstating and omitting information regarding the
Company’s OWS involvement to deceive the investing public and
inflate the market price of Vaxart securities.
The Putative Class Actions seek to be certified as a class action
for similarly situated shareholders and seek, among other things,
an uncertain amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery
and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its
proprietary oral vaccine platform. The company's product pipeline
includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against
norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It
is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for
cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus. The
company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed
its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007. The company was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco,
California.
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15,
2020, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the securities class action suit pending before the
Northern District of Illinois.
On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
(Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et
al., No. 1:15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.)) The action asserts claims for
violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain
public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016
goals.
A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint filed on
August 17, 2015 was granted in part and denied in part on September
30, 2016.
The court granted plaintiff’' motion for class certification on
March 29, 2018 and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
December 19, 2018.
A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part on September 23, 2019.
Discovery is proceeding.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Discovery Ongoing in Rite Aid Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15,
2020, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action suit initiated by purported
Rite Aid shareholders.
On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the
"M.D. Pa. action") arising out of transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement between the Company and Rite Aid.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions.
The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 15, 2019.
The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery
commenced, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WESTERN EXPRESS: Bedjan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as NORA BEDJAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2016078, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on October 22, 2020.
The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02223 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses.
Western Express, Inc. is a company that provides transportation
solutions, with its headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard D. Marca, Esq.
Jeff T. Olsen, Esq.
Ankit H. Bhakta, Esq.
VARNER & BRANDT LLP
3750 University Avenue, Suite 610
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: (951) 274-7777
Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com
Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com
Ankit.Bhakta@varnerbrandt.com
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Fails to Honor Payer Obligations, MSP Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY and WESTFIELD NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24337 (S.D. Fla., October 21,
2020) alleges that the Defendants have systematically and uniformly
failed to honor its primary payer obligations under the Medicare
Secondary Payer Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to report
their primary payer responsibility and failed to pay and/or
reimburse one or more of the conditional payments made by the
Plaintiffs' assignors for accident-related medical expenses on
behalf of their Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Part C of the
Medicare Act, for which Defendants have a demonstrated
responsibility to pay under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions
of the Social Security Act. The Defendants' obligation to pay for
accident-related medical expenses on behalf of enrollees is primary
relative to Medicare's obligation to pay for those same
accident-related medical expenses, which is identified as
secondary. The Defendants have systematically failed to make these
payments and reimbursements, passing on those expenses to Medicare
and Medicare Advantage payors.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a Delaware series limited
liability company with a principal place of business located at
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida.
MSPA Claims 1, LLC is a Florida limited liability company, with its
principal place of business at 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor in
Coral Gables, Florida.
Westfield Insurance Company is a company that issues property and
casualty policies, with its principal place of business at One Park
Circle, Westfield Center, Ohio.
Westfield National Insurance Company is a company that issues
property and casualty policies, with its principal place of
business at One Park Circle, Westfield Center, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Michael O. Mena, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and –
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran, Esq.
J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 661-2021
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
alfred@armaslaw.com
WOLFE JONES: Debt Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Miller Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAULETTE E. MILLER, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOLFE, JONES, WOLFE, HANCOCK, DANIEL &
SOUTH, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01642-CLM (N.D. Ala.,
October 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to effectively provide
the statutorily mandated disclosures on their written debt
collection communications to the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated consumers. Pursuant to section 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA,
the Defendant is required to provide consumers with a detailed
validation notice in order for them to confirm that they owe the
debt sought by the Defendant before paying it.
Wolfe, Jones, Wolfe, Hancock, Daniel & South, L.L.C. is a law firm
with its principal office in Madison County, Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina D. Greenwald, Esq.
James L. Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
YOUTH OPPORTUNITY: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Youth Counselors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY
INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00438 (E.D. Tenn.,
October 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated youth counselors
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid youth
counselor since approximately 2017.
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC is a company that offers various
services to help at-risk youth, with its principal address located
at 100 Woodland Street, Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.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 ***