/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201111.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 226
Headlines
4BUSH HOLDINGS: Bacon Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: Elbert Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit
ALFRED UNIVERSITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Claims
ALLEN BROTHERS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Paguada Says
ALOHA POOLS: Schroeder Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Technicians
AMA 2 CORP: Faces Gonzalez Suit in Florida Over FLSA Violation
AMAZON WEB: McGoveran Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
AMGEN INC: Antitrust Suit over Humira(R) Biosimilar Ongoing
AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Challenge Dismissal Recommendation
APPLE INC: McCloskey Sues Over Illegal Casino-Style Mobile Games
APPLE INC: Payton Sues Over Illegal Gambling Games on App Store
APPLE INC: Software Code Surges Cellular Data Usage, Turner Claims
ARBELLA MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Prater Alleges Misleading Product Labels
ARMISTICE CAPITAL: Jaquith Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Cantero Class Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Hymes Class Suit
BARRETT BUSINESS: Faces Walker Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
BIKE BANDIT: Faces Angeles Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
BILL'S HEATING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Wolthers Suit Says
BILOXI HMA: Henley Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to 5th Circuit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Ignacuinos Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit
BRILLIANCE NEW: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Arkansas PERS Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
BULLDOG ONLINE: Martinez Sues Over Automatic Renewal Law Violation
CALIFORNIA GRILL: Headrick Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Warn Passengers About COVID-19, Nahm Says
CARRIER GLOBAL: Facing Darnis Putative Class Suit
CASE WESTERN: Lozada Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19
CCC INFORMATION: Undervalues Insureds' Loss Vehicles, Niemis Says
CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces Newton Wage & Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
CHARLES COUNTY, MD: Gamble Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
CHELSEA LAUNDRY: Faces Aviles Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Priselac Suit Removed to E.D. California
CHINA: Christenson Appeals Ruling in Reyes Suit to 11th Circuit
CHOBANI LLC: Nacarino Sues Over False Vanilla Labelling in Yogurt
CITY CHEVROLET: Gray Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CNA FINANCIAL: Taiclet Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage Claims
COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Freds Tire Balks at Unlawful Insurance Coverage
CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Mullen Alleges ADA Violation
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Farrow Files Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
COOPERATIVE REGIONS: Collishaw Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
CROWN CORK: Mimnaugh Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees
CVS HEALTH: Mier Suit over Hand Sanitizers Moved to C.D. Calif.
D. LOVES RESTAURANTS: Riley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
DAY & ZIMMERMANN: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Waters Suit
EAST COAST: Helwing Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit
ELECTRIC BLUE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Lopez Claims
ELECTRONIC EXPRESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Claims
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Pelletier Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
EVOLUS INC: Malakouti Sues Over 37% Decline in Share Price
FIRST NATIONAL: Lara Appeals Auto Insurance Suit to Ninth Circuit
FOLGER COFFEE: Number of Servings Misleading, Tan Claims
FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees Appeal Ruling to 6th Circuit
GANNETT PUBLISHING: Aronson Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit
GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas Sues Over Monopoly in Digital Ads Market
GOOGLE LLC: McNamara Sues Over Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
HARLAND CLARKE: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Says
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Weiss Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
HEALTHY BEVERAGE: Pierre Sues Over 'Lightly Sweetened' Label
HENRY SCHEIN: Dropped as Defendant in Marion Diagnostic Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Pending
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in Salkowitz Securities Suit Now Final
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Duran Seeks Conditional Class Certification
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Winnie Appeals D. P.R. Ruling to First Circuit
HM SANDOVAL: Faces Morales Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
INSPERITY INC: Defends Building Trades Pension Fund Suit
INSPERITY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March 2021
IQVIA INC: Appeals Order in Mussat TCPA Suit to Supreme Court
JAKOV DULCICH: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
JP CYCLES: Faces Johnson-Owen Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
JPMORGAN CHASE: Quinn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
KING-TILLER LLC: Fields Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Penegar Sues Over Unreimbursed Medicare Claims
LIVE WELL: Shakespeare Appeals E.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Claims
LOWE'S HOME: McPhee Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fourth Circuit
MARKEL AMERICAN: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
MARKOFF LAW: Faces Fleming FDCA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Misclassifies IT Personnel, Walker Suit Claims
MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Delisle Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
MD CBD: Marantz Sues Over Rent Overcharge
MDL 2796: Audubon Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Circuit
MDL 2878: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
MDL 2977: Haff Poultry Seeks to Transfer and Consolidate 4 Cases
MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Collins Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Policies
MEXGROCER.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cabrales Appeals N.D. Tex. Ruling to 5th Circuit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ortiz Consumer Credit Suit Removed to W.D. Tex.
MISTER BEE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
MIZUHO BANK: Laydon Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
MODELL'S SPORTING: Faces Kretschman Class Suit in New Jersey
MODERN FACILITIES: Padilla Alleges Unlawful Wage Pay for Janitors
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending
MRS BPO: Macaraeg Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Circuit
NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Webster Suit in Connecticut Superior Court
NOBILIS HEALTH: Yang Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 5th Cir.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Marshall Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
NOVA CASUALTY: LF Personal Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage
NOVO FITNESS: Fails to Pay OT to Fitness Studio Staff, Mixon Says
OFFICE DEPOT: Moran Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Leather Chairs
OLD LYME: Wong Files Fraud Suit in N.D. California
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Moon Appeals Ruling in ADA Suit to 9th Circuit
OVERSTOCK.COM: Mangrove Partners Appeals Ruling to 10th Cir.
PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Flo & Eddie Copyright Suit
PHOENIX LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid for Lead Plaintiff in UFCW Suit Pending
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Plant Workers Suit Granted
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Facing New Mexico Attorney General Suit
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Grower Litig. Underway in Okla., Colo. and Kansas
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Oct. 2022 Trial in Illinois Broiler Chicken Suit
PIONEER CREDIT: Tavernaro Appeals Order in FDCPA Suit to 10th Cir.
PRIMAL NUTRITION: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
QUAID HARLEY: Sentry Select Files Insurance Suit in C.D. Calif.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
RENTSPREE INC: Faces Brown Suit Over Background Checks
REZULT GROUP: Stallworth Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Amigon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SAGINAW, MI: Alcona County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir.
SAGINAW, MI: Alpena County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir.
SCIOTO DOWNS: Neal Suit in Ohio Alleges ADA Violation
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Beach Glo Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
SEAWORLD PARKS: Kouball Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir.
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Koustis Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violations
SHELTER MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
SIGMA DINER: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SIMON & SCHUSTER: Mejico Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal
SOUTH SHORE: Underpays Non-exempt Workers, Perez et al. Allege
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
SPECIALTY PROMOTIONS: Citizens Files Insurance Suit in Illinois
SQUARE INC: Faces Thorne Suit Over Denial of Fraud Dispute Claims
ST. ANTHONY: Thompson Appeals Judgment to Minn. Appeals Court
STATE FARM: Faces Rosenberg-Wohl Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim
SUNOCO INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cline Class Suit
SUNWORKS INC: Hoang Calls Company Sale to Peck Co. "Unfair"
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Mart Securities Class Suit Ongoing
TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
TITAN STAFFING: Facing Arredondo Class Suit in NY State Court
TRADER JOE'S: Robie Alleges Misleading Cereal Product Labels
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suits Pending
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Peek Appeals Thompson Case Ruling to 9th Cir.
TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
UNISYS CORP: Kelley Seeks Collective Status of Managers' Suit
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Scholl Prisoner Suit
UNITED STATES: Cleveland Square Appeals Order to Federal Circuit
UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in Samma Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Wilcox Prisoner Rights Suit in W.D. Michigan
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Santiago Suit in State Court
VALARIS PLC: Zhang Class Action Stayed Amid Bankrụptcy Filing
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Hill Seeks Refund of Tickets & Citations
VELLOSO & SANTOS: Buzzi et al. Seek Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT
VILLAGE GREEN: Fails to Pay OT to Service Managers, Manco Claims
VISION SERVICE: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WALMART INC: Hellige Appeals S.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit
WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Brezinski Files Class Suit in Pennsylvania
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Related to BolaWrap Ongoing
XTO ENERGY: Fredericksburg Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments
YIELDSTREET INC: Paguada Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website
*********
4BUSH HOLDINGS: Bacon Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY BACON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. JARED FORBUSH, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09853 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2020) arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendants in contacting the Plaintiff on
her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants contacted her on her
cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit customers to purchase
CBD oils and products, in or around January 2020. She asserts that
the Defendants continued to send multiple messages even without her
consent or permission using an "automated telephone dialing
system."
The Defendants' conduct violated the TCPA and invade the
Plaintiff's and putative class members' right to privacy, the suit
says.
Jared Forbush is the chief executive and registered agent of 4Bush
Holdings, LLC, a Utah limited liability company with its principal
place of business in South Kaysville, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: Elbert Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rich Elbert et al. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled RICH ELBERT; JEFF A. KOSEK;
REICHMANN LAND & CATTLE LLP; LUDOWESE A.E. INC.; and MICHAEL
STAMER; individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, and FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01574-JRT-TNL, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.
On June 5, 2017, a group of farmers and incorporated farms filed
suit against a number of insurance companies, the United States
Department of Agriculture, the Risk Management Agency, and the
Federal Crop Insurance Corp. The Plaintiffs are dry bean farmers in
Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota who have not received
indemnity for crop insurance to which they believe they are
entitled.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of all dry
bean farmers in Michigan (navy pea beans and small red beans),
Minnesota (dark red kidney beans), and North Dakota (dark red
kidney beans). Each Plaintiff purchased Dry Bean Revenue
Endorsement ("DRBE") crop insurance for their dry bean crops in
2015. The purpose of this insurance was to protect dry bean farmers
against a market price decline. However, even though dry bean
market prices declined greatly in 2015, no indemnity was paid to
the Plaintiffs. In July 2018, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment invalidating certain administrative determinations related
to the DBRE, reforming or invaliding the insurance contracts, and
ordering the Defendants to pay indemnity to them.
The Minnesota Plaintiffs brought a Motion for Summary Judgment in
September 2019, arguing that as a matter of law, the Defendants
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not setting a harvest price
when Watts and Associates, Inc., an economic consulting firm,
failed to determine the harvest price for dark-red kidney beans.
On August 21, 2020, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment. The District Court also denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss but granted their Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Rich Ebert, et al. v. U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, et al., Case No. 20-3073, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eight Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Rich Elbert, et al., are represented by:
John D. Tallman, Esq.
JOHN D. TALLMAN, PLLC
Suite 101 4020 East Beltline Avenue, N.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49525
Telephone: (616) 361-8850
ALFRED UNIVERSITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAIM SARWAR, Individually v. ALFRED UNIVERSITY SAXON INN & VP
BUSINESS & FINANCE, A New York Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-01517-WMS (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated
disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his
civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether
places of public accommodation and their Websites are in compliance
with the ADA.
The Defendant owns a place of public accommodation as defined by
the ADA and the regulations implementing the law. The place of
public accommodation/property that the Defendant owns is a place of
lodging known as Saxon Inn Alfred NY located in the County of
Allegany.
The complaint contends that the Plaintiff visited the property's
Websites for the purpose of reviewing and assessing its accessible
features and ascertain whether they meet the requirements of ADA
and his accessibility needs. However, Mr. Sarwar was unable to do
so because the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set
forth in ADA. Specifically, the Websites, which accept reservations
for the hotel online, did not identify or allow for reservation of
accessible guest rooms and did not provide sufficient information
for disabled persons regarding accessibility at the hotel. As a
result, the Plaintiff was deprived the same services, features,
facilities, benefits, advantages, and accommodations of the
property available to the general public.
Because the online reservations system discriminates against the
Plaintiff, it is thereby more difficult to book a room at the hotel
or make an informed decision as to whether the facilities at the
hotel are accessible, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq.
THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
5150 Cottage Farm Rd.
Johns Creek, GA 30022
Telephone: (404) 276-7277
E-mail: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com
ALLEN BROTHERS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Paguada Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALLEN BROTHERS 1893, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09256-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2020) arises from Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that most recently he visited the Defendant's
Website, www.allenbrothers.com, in October of 2020 to browse and
potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, he was
denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual
due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to
enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Allen Brothers 1983, LLC is a prime steak company that owns and
operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ALOHA POOLS: Schroeder Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SCHROEDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. ALOHA POOLS & SPAS OF UNION CITY AND JONESBORO, LLC,
and DALE BRADLEY COOK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00354-JM (E.D. Ark., Nov.
4, 2020), is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
(AMWA).
The Plaintiff contends that he and other Service Technicians
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their
tenure with the Defendant. The Defendant paid him and other Service
Technicians 1.5x times their base hourly rate for the hours they
worked over 40 in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not
include the commissions that were paid to them in their regular
rates when calculating their overtime pay even though they received
commissions in pay periods in which they also worked in excess of
40 hours per week, he adds.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid Service Technician
from August of 2019 until September of 2020. He worked at the
Defendant's location in Missouri until January of 2020, and at the
Defendant's location in Jonesboro thereafter.
Aloha is a franchise of America's Swimming Pool Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
AMA 2 CORP: Faces Gonzalez Suit in Florida Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMA 2, Corp. The case
is captioned as MIGUEL GONZALEZ, and other similarly situated
individuals v. AMA 2, CORP., VICTOR AMADOR, and ROSSANA AMADOR,
Case No. 0:20-cv-62023-AHS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 5, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The case is assigned to Judge Raag Singhal.
AMA 2, Corp. is a Florida-based company which is part of the
business services sector industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
Tanesha LaShay Marie Walls, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 N.E. 30th Avenue Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
tblye@saenzanderson.com
- and -
Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
500 S. Federal Highway, Suite 1058
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Telephone: (787) 453-0115
E-mail: yramirez@saenzanderson.com
AMAZON WEB: McGoveran Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MCGOVERAN, JOSEPH VALENTINE, and AMELIA RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and PINDROP
SECURITY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01399-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 16, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Biometric Information
Privacy Act by collecting, possessing, redisclosing, profiting
from, and failing to safeguard their biometric identifiers and
biometric information.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of individuals who made one or more phone calls to or
received one or more phone calls from call centers, customer
service representatives and/or other entities using services
offered by Amazon Web Services, Inc., and had their unique,
biometric voiceprints collected, possessed, and used by the
Defendants without their consent or authorization, including
through the use of Pindrop's biometric voice authentication
technology.
Amazon Web Services is a subsidiary of Amazon providing on-demand
cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered pay-as-you-go basis.
Pindrop Security is an American information security company that
provides risk scoring for phone calls to detect fraud and
authenticate callers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
Joel Rohlf, Esq.
Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
100 South Fourth St., Ste. 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
jrohlf@uselaws.com
abraitberg@uselaws.com
- and -
Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
Ronald P. Golden III, Esq.
BAYARD, P.A.
600 North King Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 655-5000
E-mail: sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
AMGEN INC: Antitrust Suit over Humira(R) Biosimilar Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated antitrust class action suit related to
Humira(R) Biosimilar.
On July 28, 2020, the plaintiffs in the antitrust class action
lawsuit filed a notice of appeal.
On October 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, including one
by the Federal Trade Commission and one on behalf of 20 states,
both filed on October 13, 2020.
Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.
AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Challenge Dismissal Recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that on August 5, 2020, the
plaintiffs in Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions filed objections
to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware's report
and recommendation issued on July 22, 2020 that the claims against
Amgen be dismissed but recommended that leave be given to
plaintiffs to amend their complaints. On August 19, 2020, Amgen
filed a response to the plaintiffs' objections.
Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.
APPLE INC: McCloskey Sues Over Illegal Casino-Style Mobile Games
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN McCLOSKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00434-TMR (S.D. Ohio,
October 23, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to recover money lost to illegal gambling
pursuant to Section 3763.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.
The complaint contends that the Defendant is profiting from illegal
gambling machine games that it sells in its App Store by allowing
customers to purchase games that are no more or no less than
casino-style slot machines, casino style table games, and other
common gambling games.
The Plaintiff downloaded and played several of these casino-style
gambling games. Since July of 2019, he has downloaded multiple
games, including Coin Master, billionaire Casino Slots 777, Cash
Frenzy and MyKONAMI-Real Vegas Slots. Beginning July 23, 2019, he
purchased coins through the Apple App Store so he could continue to
play for a chance to win free coins that would enable him to enjoy
the games for a longer period of time. In the six months prior to
the filing of this complaint, he paid $64.90 to Apple for the
privilege of continuing to play the illegal gambling games, the
suit alleges.
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers
and related personal computing and mobile communication devices
along with a variety of related software, services, peripherals,
and networking solutions. Apple sells its products worldwide
through its online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales
force, third-party wholesalers, and resellers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John E. Breen, Esq.
BREEN LAW, LLC
7761 Chetwood Close, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43054
Telephone: (614) 374-3324
E-mail: john@breenlegal.com
- and -
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com
APPLE INC: Payton Sues Over Illegal Gambling Games on App Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE PAYTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04326-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
October 22, 2020) is brought against the Defendant to recover money
lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 13-8-3 of the Georgia
Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant promotes, enables, and
profits from games downloaded from its App Store and played by
numerous Georgia residents that constitute illegal gambling under
the statutory law and the strong public policy of the state.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.
It is considered one of the Big Tech technology companies,
alongside Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven N. Newton, Esq.
STEVEN N. NEWTON, LLC
401 Westpark Court, Suite 200
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Telephone: (678) 837-6398
Facsimile: (678) 831-0707
E-mail: steven@mynewtonlaw.com
- and -
John E. Norris, Esq.
Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com
dware@davisnorris.com
APPLE INC: Software Code Surges Cellular Data Usage, Turner Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-07495 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2020) is a lawsuit over Apple's
unlawful and unfair business practices affecting the Plaintiff and
all persons in the United States who owned or leased an Apple
iPhone with iOS 13 installed and who used a limited cellular data
plan with that iPhone.
To use their iPhones, consumers are required to use Apple's mobile
operating system, designed and marketed by Apple, known as iOS. In
September 2019, Apple released iOS version 13, which Apple promised
would bring "improvements across the entire system that make your
iPhone even faster and more delightful to use."
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not disclose that iOS
13 also contained hidden software code that caused devices running
iOS 13 to consume cellular data without the user's input or
control, and without providing the user any identifiable benefit.
By increasing cellular data usage, the software code increases
costs to users and uses up the cellular data they have purchased
from their cellular providers.
In June 2020, given the Defendant's months-long delay in mitigating
the harmful effects of iOS 13, the only reasonable explanation is
that the software code was not a defect. The code was designed to
measure the performance of a new Apple software product or iOS
feature, unbeknownst to and without the input of users -- and at
their expense, the suit says.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.
It is considered one of the Big Tech technology companies,
alongside Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.com
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
David M. Berger, Esq.
Alexander J. Bukac, Esq.
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
dmb@classlawgroup.com
ajb@classlawgroup.com
ARBELLA MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. ARBELLA
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and ARBELLA INSURANCE GROUP, Case No.
1:20-cv-24062-UU (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement
obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly
situated under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the
Social Security Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have
also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the class members for
accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements
with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff has established various designated series pursuant to
Delaware law in order to maintain various claims recovery
assignments separate from other company assets, and to account for
and associate certain assets with certain particular series.
Arbella Mutual Insurance Company and Arbella Insurance Group are
companies that issue property and casualty policies with principal
place of businesses in Quincy, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Michael O. Mena, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd. 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Alfredo Armas, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran, Esq.
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
fzincone@armaslaw.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Prater Alleges Misleading Product Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Prater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09108
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the Defendant's conduct of
branding and packaging its iced tea and lemonade blends that
deceives, misleads, and defrauds the Plaintiff and other
consumers.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
iced tea and lemonade blends purporting to be "Lite" - under its
Arizona brand. The relevant front label statements include "Half &
Half," "Iced Tea Lemonade," "Arnold Palmer" and "Lite."
According to the complaint, the terms "light" and "lite" in the
context of food descriptions are used interchangeably. Though
"lite" may connote a wide variety of meanings, surveys have shown
that consumers, including the Plaintiff, believe the term means
that the caloric level has been reduced significantly. Thus, the
term "Lite" is misleading because it gives the impression
consumption of the product, when compared to other foods in its
class, contributes substantially to the reduction of calories in
the diet.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.19 for 12
OZ, excluding tax, and higher than the price compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way, the suit
says.
Arizona Beverages USA LLC was founded in 2010. The Company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ARMISTICE CAPITAL: Jaquith Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA JAQUITH and PAUL BERGERON, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of VAXART,
INC. v. WOUTER W. LATOUR, STEVEN BOYD, KEITH MAHER, ANDREI FLOROIU,
ROBERT A. YEDID, TODD DAVIS, MICHAEL J. FINNEY, ANNE M. VANLENT,
and ARMISTICE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2020-0904-PAF (Del. Ch., Oct.
20, 2020) alleges that the Defendants artificially inflated Vaxart
Inc.'s stock through their involvement in the "Operation Warp
Speed" (OWS), a public-private partnership established to
fast-track potential vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, commonly referred to
as COVID-19.
According to the complaint, just as Vaxart was about to sign
agreements to participate in OWS, Armistice Capital LLC, the
investment firm that serves as the Company's controlling
shareholder, has amended warrant agreements it had with Vaxart,
allowing it to rapidly profit off any upward movement in the
Company's stock price.
As Armistice and the Board foresaw the day that Vaxart's inclusion
in OWS became public, Vaxart's stock skyrocketed and Armistice
exercised these warrants - buying a large volume of Vaxart stock at
a steep discount and immediately turning around and selling these
shares for an enormous profit. These purchases could not have taken
place without the Board's disloyal and improper revision of the
warrant agreements. Through its insider trading, facilitated by the
Board, Armistice has realized ill-gotten gains of nearly $200
million, with the potential for more sales to create more improper
profits.
The Plaintiffs allege that Vaxart directors breached their
fiduciary duties by authorizing the warrant amendments despite
knowing that doing so facilitated Armistice trading on material,
non-public information. Boyd and Maher, the Armistice directors,
also breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by
trading on such material, non-public information. Further, the
Board awarded itself spring-loaded stock options under a plan
approved by an uninformed stockholder vote - resulting in an
improper windfall to the Board well in excess of appropriate
compensation.
Armistice's illegal and otherwise inexplicable trades have now
resulted in Vaxart being served with a Grand Jury Subpoena by the
United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
California and a document request from the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Enforcement Division. The Vaxart Board's and
Armistice's wrongdoing could not be clearer, they must not be
allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains, and the Company's claims
for all harm suffered must be vindicated, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs further request the Court enter an order finding the
Vaxart Board members breached their fiduciary duties, requiring
Armistice to disgorge the nearly $267 million it earned through
insider trading and the Vaxart Board to disgorge its improperly
obtained options, and that the stockholder vote at the Annual
Meeting was uninformed, requiring a new, fully informed, vote on
the 2020 Plan.
The Plaintiffs currently own shares of Vaxart common stock and have
owned Vaxart shares continuously since April 2020.
Vaxart Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing oral
tablet vaccines designed to generate mucosal and systemic immune
responses that protect against a wide range of infectious diseases
including experimental vaccines for COVID-19.
Armistice Capital LLC operates as a hedge fund focused on health
and consumer sectors. Armistice was Vaxart's controlling
shareholder.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Sascha N. Rand, Esq.
Rollo Baker, Esq.
Silpa Maruri, Esq.
Jesse Bernstein, Esq.
Charlie Sangree, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
51 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7036
- and -
Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 779-1414
BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Cantero Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bank of America filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled ALEX CANTERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-4157, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay interest to Plaintiff and
the class members on the funds held in escrow accounts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant like many mortgage
lenders, regularly requires borrowers to maintain escrow accounts
containing sufficient funds to cover payments for property taxes
and insurance on mortgaged properties. The Defendant collects the
funds from borrowers in advance, holds the funds in escrow
accounts, and then directly pays property taxes and insurance
premiums when they become due.
In violation of New York State law, the Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff and members of the Class he seeks to represent interest
on amounts paid into these escrow accounts. Instead, Defendant uses
this money to generate "float" income for itself. Money sitting in
an escrow account is the property of the borrower, not the
Defendant.
For this reason, in New York, Defendant is required to pay interest
on amounts in escrow accounts to the true owner of the account and
may not use those amounts solely for its own benefit. Because the
Defendant has ignored this legal obligation, the Plaintiff now
brings this class action to stop this unlawful conduct and to seek
redress for borrowers who did not receive the interest to which
they were entitled.
The appellate case is captioned as Bank of America, N.A. v.
Cantero, Case No. 20-3581, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent Alex Cantero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3282
E-mail: bsilverman@fbfglaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner Petitioner Bank of America, N.A. is
represented by:
Mark William Mosier, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1 CityCenter
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5435
E-mail: mmosier@cov.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Hymes Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bank of America filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Bank of America, N.A., and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2352, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action against the Defendants for restitution and reimbursement,
injunctive relief, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, pursuant
to the New York General Obligation Law.
The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants violated
the New York General Obligation Law, which requires a mortgage
lender making a loan secured by a one-to-six family residence
located in New York to pay the borrower a minimum of 2% simple
interest for money received in advance from the borrower for tax
and insurance that is held by the lender in an "escrow" account
until payment is due. During all or part of the Class Period, the
Plaintiffs have paid hundreds of dollars into an escrow account but
have received no interest on those payments.
The appellate case is captioned as Bank of America, N.A. v. Hymes,
Case No. 20-3582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Daniel W. Krasner, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: krasner@whafh.com
Defendant-Petitioner Petitioner Bank of America, N.A. is
represented by:
Mark William Mosier, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1 CityCenter
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5435
E-mail: mmosier@cov.com
BARRETT BUSINESS: Faces Walker Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TASHAVEA WALKER, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Maryland
corporation; PERFORMANCE TEAM HOLDINGS INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV39172 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 9, 2020) alleges
the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees to security checks at the beginning of shifts, at meal
breaks and at the end of work shifts without proper compensation;
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods; failed to adopt
standards that minimize excessive indoor heat; failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failed to timely pay all wages
upon termination or within 72 hours of resignation; and failed to
reimburse for all expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee
from approximately 2017 through August 25, 2019.
Barrett Business Services, Inc. (BBSI) is a provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies. The Company
has developed a management platform that integrates a
knowledge-based approach from the management consulting industry
with tools from the human resource outsourcing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
BIKE BANDIT: Faces Angeles Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bike Bandit, LLC. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bike Bandit, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08560-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
Bike Bandit, LLC is a motorcycle parts superstore retailer founded
in 1999 by serial entrepreneur Ken Wahlster. The company sells
motorcycle parts, apparel, and accessories through an online
Website, bikebandit.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
BILL'S HEATING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Wolthers Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN WOLTHERS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BILL'S HEATING AIR APPLIANCE
REPAIR, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00504-CWD (D. Idaho, October 29, 2020) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from in or around
December 2016 until in or around October 2019 as a non-exempt
Service Technician/Sales Representative.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees
were required by the Defendants to regularly and routinely perform
duties even during meal periods and/or lunch breaks. However, they
were not compensated for the overtime hours worked because the
Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from its employees'
pay, thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
week.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep and/or maintain accurate
records of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' wages
and hours in accordance with the FLSA.
Bill's Heating Air Appliance Repair, LLC is engaged in the business
of selling, servicing, repairing, fixing, and installing heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kammi Mencke Smith, Esq.
Scott A. Gingras, Esq.
WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS
250 Northwest Blvd., Suite 206
Coeur d' Alene, ID 83814
Tel: (208) 667-2103
Fax: (208) 765-2121
E-mail: kms@winstoncashatt.com
sag@winstoncashatt.com
BILOXI HMA: Henley Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to 5th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kimberly Henley filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled KIMBERLY HENLEY, on behalf of,
Plaintiff, herself and all others similarly situated v. BILOXI
H.M.A., LLC; COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; and JOHN AND JANE DOES
1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-544, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 18,
2020, Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, denied
without prejudice Henley's Placeholder Motion for Class
Certification filed on Aug. 28, 2019.
Henley filed the Complaint in the case on Aug. 27, 2019, asserting
a single claim for declaratory relief. Specifically, she sought a
finding that Defendants Biloxi H.M.A., LLC, doing business as Merit
Health Biloxi, Community Health Systems, Inc., and John and Jane
Does 1 Through 25, owed a duty to disclose a surcharge that is
billed to emergency care patients in advance of receiving treatment
or services that would trigger such a charge.
On Aug. 28, 2019, Henley filed the present Placeholder Motion for
Class Certification. She requests that the Court certifies a class
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated.
The Plaintiff proposes a class of all individuals who, within the
past three years, presented at a Merit Health hospital in
Mississippi and were billed a facility fee identify with the CPT
Code of 99281, 99282, 99283, 99284, or 99285.
The appellate case is captioned as Kimberly Henley v. Biloxi
H.M.A., L.L.C., Case No. 20-60991, in the US Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Kimberly Henley, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Christopher Collins Van Cleave, Esq.
CORBAN GUNN & VAN CLEAVE
146 Porter Avenue
Biloxi, MS 39530-3704
Telephone: (228) 432-7826
E-mail: christopher@vancleavelaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., a Mississippi Limited
Liability Company, doing business as Merit Health Biolxi, is
represented by:
Jeffrey Ralph Blackwood, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, L.L.P.
188 E. Capitol Street
1 Jackson Place
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 948-8000
E-mail: jblackwood@bradley.com
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Ignacuinos Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carl Ignacuinos, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Judgment dated September 25, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Ignacuinos v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceu, Case
No. 19-cv-672, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 23,
2020, David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. convinced a Connecticut
federal judge to throw out a purported class action alleging the
company's Combivent Respimat inhaler for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease was falsely marketed as containing 120 doses when
it had about half that number.
COPD patients Carl Ignacuinos and Pamala Davis brought a 17-count
complaint against Boehringer, seeking damages and an injunction
prohibiting the company from marketing the Combivent inhaler with
the alleged defects and misrepresentations. Ignacuinos claimed his
inhalers averaged 61 metered doses, while Davis said she only got
about 70.
The appellate case is captioned as Ignacuinos v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceu, Case No. 20-3643, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Carl Ignacuinos, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; and Pamela Davis, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Defendant-Appellee Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticas Inc. is
represented by:
James T. Shearin, Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
850 Main Street P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Telephone: (203) 330-2240
E-mail: jtshearin@pullcom.com
BRILLIANCE NEW: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brilliance New York,
LLC. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Brilliance New York, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08554-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
Brilliance New York, LLC is a New York-based hair care products
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Arkansas PERS Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, et al.,
filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated
September 30, 2020, and Judgment dated September 30, 2020, entered
in the lawsuit entitled Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case
No. 18-cv-1611, in the U.S. Southern District of New York (New York
City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss claims in the case captioned JENNIFER TUNG et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY et al., Defendants, No.
18-CV-1611 (JPO), (S.D.N.Y.).
Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company announced a clinical trial
to test the efficacy of one of its newest anticancer drugs. The
trial failed, which precipitated a drop in the company's stock
price. The Plaintiffs now bring this putative shareholder class
action, alleging that public statements by Bristol-Myers and its
officers mischaracterized the experimental design of the trial,
thereby overstating the likelihood of the trial's success. The
plaintiffs bring claims under Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, Case No. 20-3716, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System,
Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund, and Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH are represented by:
Lauren Amy Ormsbee, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1593
E-mail: laurenm@blbglaw.com
- and -
William H. Narwold, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
20 Church Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1676
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
Defendants-Appellees Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Michael
Giordano, Fouad Namouni, Francis M. Cuss, Giovanni Caforio,
Lamberto Andreotti, and Charles A. Bancroft are represented by:
Yosef J. Riemer, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
E-mail: yosef.riemer@kirkland.com
BULLDOG ONLINE: Martinez Sues Over Automatic Renewal Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., an individual v. BULLDOG ONLINE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV39577 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2020) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
arising from the Defendants' offer of "free" services and products
that violate the California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair
Competition Law.
The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted a "free"
trial online fitness class service/subscription and related
products from the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to present the
automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in
a "clear and conspicuous" manner and in "visual proximity" to the
request for consent to the offer before the subscription or
purchasing agreement was fulfilled; and (b) fails to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding
how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer
As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to
the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded.
Based in Villanova, Pennsylvania, Bulldog Online, LLC operates a
Website which markets online fitness class services/subscriptions
and related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
CALIFORNIA GRILL: Headrick Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TARA HEADRICK, and SOPHIA HEIDLER individuals v. CALIFORNIA GRILL
LLC D/B/A FOXY'S CABARET; ERIC S. LANGAN AND TOMMY PERKINS,
individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-01073 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2020) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated arising from the Defendants' conduct of evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips.
The Plaintiffs allege that throughout their employment with the
Defendants, they have been denied minimum wage payments and denied
overtime as part of a scheme to classify them and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors" by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff also assert that the Defendants willfully
failed and refused to pay them the proper amount of the tips to
which they were entitled.
Plaintiffs Headrick and Heidler worked as exotic dancers for the
Defendants from December 2017 through August 2018, and from January
2018 through September 2018, respectively.
California Grill LLC is an Austin, Texas-based adult-oriented
entertainment company doing business as Foxy's Cabaret.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
craft@hughesellzey.com
leigh@hughesellzey.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Warn Passengers About COVID-19, Nahm Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER NAHM, individually; and GRACE NAHM, individually v. CARNIVAL
CORPORATION, a Panama corporation; CARNIVAL PLC, an England and
Wales corporation; and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., a Bermuda
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-09777 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' negligent decision to continue cruise
ship operations without implementing any safety protocols and/or
preventative measures to the Plaintiffs and all persons similarly
situated, despite knowledge of the catastrophic risk to human life
that COVID-19 posed and despite knowledge of the specific and acute
threat the cruise ship industry presented related to COVID-19.
When MR. and MRS. NAHM boarded the Coral Princess cruise ship in
San Antonio, Chile on March 5, 2020, neither of them had any
knowledge, notice, and/or warning that they were boarding a cruise
ship armed with a super virus known to be highly contagious, kill
at-risk populations quickly, and have no cure, known as SARS-CoV-2,
the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
The Defendants decided to continue its operations without
implementing any safety protocols including but not limited to, (a)
screening and refusing to board passengers and crewmembers with
recent contact with countries experiencing outbreak of COVID-19;
(b) providing precautionary medical apparatuses, such as masks,
gloves and/or hand sanitizer; (c) imposing safety precautions
on-board, such as social distancing; (d) disinfecting,
decontaminating, and/or sanitizing the exposed surfaces of the
cruise ship prior to boarding passengers; and/or (e) changing how
they off-board and on-board passengers to the ship, instead of
using practices where passengers off-boarding the ship come in
close contact with passengers on-boarding the ship.
As a result, Plaintiffs both got COVID-19 on the Coral Princess
after first being told they had the flu, the suit says.
Carnival Corporation & PLC is a British-American cruise operator,
with a combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line
brands.
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. is a cruise line owned by Carnival
Corporation & PLC. The company is incorporated in Bermuda and its
headquarters are in Santa Clarita, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
James Dallal, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
jdallal@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Kelly W. Weil, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3088
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (310) 392-2008
Facsimile: (310) 392-0111
E-mail: kweil@cpmlegal.com
- and -
P. Terry Anderlini, Esq.
ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY LLP
66 Bovet Road, Suite 285
San Mateo, CA 94402
Telephone: (650) 242-4884
Facsimile: (650) 212-0001
E-mail: tanderlini@amlawoffice.com
CARRIER GLOBAL: Facing Darnis Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Geraud Darnis,
et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.
On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its
subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against UTC,
Carrier, and Otis Worldwide Corporation (Otis), the former members
of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and
Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, et al.).
The complaint challenges the method by which UTC equity awards were
converted to UTC, Carrier, and Otis equity awards following the
separation of UTC into three independent, publicly traded companies
on April 3, 2020.
The complaint claims that the defendants are liable for breach of
certain equity compensation plans and for breach of fiduciary duty,
and also asserts claims under certain provisions of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
Carrier believes that the claims against the Company are without
merit.
Carrier Global Corporation is a leading global provider of heating,
ventilating, air conditioning ("HVAC"), refrigeration, and fire and
security solutions. Carrier also provides a broad array of related
building services, including audit, design, installation, system
integration, repair, maintenance and monitoring. Carrier’s
operations are classified into three segments: HVAC, Refrigeration
and Fire & Security. The company is based in Palm Beach, Florida.
CASE WESTERN: Lozada Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LOZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-02336-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 13, 2020) is brought on behalf
of all persons who paid tuition and/or fees to attend Case Western
Reserve University for in-person, hands-on educational services and
experiences for the semesters or terms affected by Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), including the Spring 2020,
but had their course work moved to online only learning.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not refunded any
amount of the tuition or any of the mandatory fees, even though it
has implemented online-only distance learning starting in or around
March 10, 2020 and cancelled all on-campus events and services.
Additionally, the Defendant's failure to provide the in-person and
on-campus services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were
intended to cover since approximately March 10, 2020 is an alleged
breach of the contract between the University and the Plaintiff.
The return of such amounts would compensate the Plaintiff and the
Class members for damages sustained by way of the Defendant's
breach, the suit says.
Plaintiff Lozada was an undergraduate student during the Spring
2020 semester with an expected graduation date in 2022.
Case Western Reserve University is a private university in
Cleveland, Ohio that was founded in 1826. Case Western offers
numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a
number of graduate programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8297
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
CCC INFORMATION: Undervalues Insureds' Loss Vehicles, Niemis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NIEMIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation,
Case No. 20-005022-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Oct. 19, 2020)
seeks compensatory damages and other appropriate remedies caused by
the Defendant's breaches of its contractual duties owed to Garrison
Property and Casualty Insurance Company for the benefit of its
insureds and intentional interference with the contract of
insurance between Garrison and its insureds.
Corporal Michael Niemis has an automobile insurance with Garrison
Property. In May 2020, Cpl. Niemis was in a wreck and submitted a
claim to Garrison, which deemed his vehicle a total loss. To
determine the actual cash value of Cpl. Niemis' loss vehicle,
Garrison has a general business practice of obtaining valuation
reports from CCC Information, and Garrison uses those reports to
determine the actual cash value of insureds' loss vehicles.
According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically includes
in its reports unfounded and deceptive negative condition
adjustments that misrepresent the actual cash value of insureds'
loss vehicles. These reports, in turn, cause Garrison to pay
insureds less than the actual cash value of their total loss
vehicles, in breach of its contracts of insurance.
By providing inaccurate and deceptive valuation reports to
Garrison, the Defendant has breached its contract with Garrison,
thereby directly harming Garrison's insureds, the direct and
intended beneficiary of that contractual relationship, the suit
says.
CCC Information Services, Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based
information technologies company that develops claims management
automation and valuation software for insurance companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlyn P. Miller, Esq.
Mary Liu, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: cmiller@awkolaw.com
mliu@awkolaw.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
Jake G. Windley, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th St.
Little Rock, AR, 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces Newton Wage & Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIJON NEWTON, ANDRE ODOM, AND JACKIE WILSON, individually, and on
behalf of other similarly situated employees v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S.
INC., RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, AND DOES 1-5, Case No.
RG20076553 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from
the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the
California Labor Code, the Industrial Wage Commission, and the
California Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have engaged in a system
of willful violations of California wage-and-hour laws by
implementing and adopting an unlawful Alternative Workweek Schedule
that (1) willfully denied the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees overtime wages, (2) willfully failed to pay
compensation owed Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees
in a timely manner upon termination, and (3) willfully failed to
provide Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees with
accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements.
From approximately November 2017 through May 2018, Plaintiff Newton
worked at Hayward Warehouse as a dockworker or material
handler/operator. Plaintiff Odom's employment period was from
November 2017 through December 2018. Plaintiff Wilson worked at
Hayward Warehouse from November 2017 through April 2019.
CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. is a global logistics company that
provides storage and distribution services. It operates a network
of warehouses or distribution centers in California, including one
located in Hayward, California.
Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC operates as a recruitment firm. The
Company offers employment, integration, management, training, human
resources solutions, temporary placement, and other services.
Randstad Inhouse Services serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexei Kuchinsky, Esq.
KUCHINSKY LAW OFFICE, P.C.
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (628) 200-0902
Facsimile: (628) 200-0907
E-mail: ak@kuchinskylawoffice.com
CHARLES COUNTY, MD: Gamble Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON GAMBLE v. CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND and CHARLES COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 8:20-cv-03126-PWG (D. Md., Oct. 27,
2020) is a complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 for employment discrimination on the basis of race and
retaliation, and for violations of the overtime provisions of the
federal and state laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff by, among other things, refusing to honor his
shaving waiver and terminating him from his employment because of
his race. The Plaintiff also engaged in activity protected by Title
VII when he participated in the Office of Internal Affairs'
investigation into the Defendants' actions through an interview, in
which the Plaintiff recounted discriminatory activities.
The Defendants also failed to comply with the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage &
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a police recruit on
February 4, 2019. He was terminated on July 2, 2019.
Charles County Sheriff's Office is an agency of Charles County,
Maryland responsible for, among other things, hiring, directing,
and supervising employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan K. Mechak, Esq.
Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave. NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
E-mail: mkm@mselaborlaw.com
djn@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
CHELSEA LAUNDRY: Faces Aviles Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y
-----------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTA AVILES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHELSEA LAUNDRY INC. (D/B/A CHELSEA LAUNDRY), MARCO
DOE, and SUSIE DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-08992 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27,
2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours worked. She added
that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to provide accurate wage statements at
the time of the payment of wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Chelsea Laundry
from approximately November 2014 until on or about March 15, 2020
as a washer, dryer, and packer, and to pick up and deliver
clothes.
Chelsea Laundry Inc. owns, operates, or controls a laundry company
under the name "Chelsea Laundry" in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Priselac Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAMMIE PRISELAC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., E.I.
DUPONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS,
INC., ELLIS H. MCGAUGHY, BRIAN D. LONG, AND MICHAEL E. JOHNSON,
Case No. 20-CVS-499, was removed from the Superior Court of North
Carolina for the County of Bladen to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 6, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 7:20-cv-00190 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff after the Defendants
committed the tort of trespass to real property by releasing toxic
chemicals from the Fayetteville Works Site that physically intruded
onto and wrongfully entered the Plaintiff's and class members'
properties.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC was founded in 2014. The Company's
line of business includes the manufacturing and production of
agricultural chemicals.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas H. Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Telephone: (919) 865-7000
Facsimile: (919) 865-7010
E-mail: tom.segars@elliswinters.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Reilly, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd.
3200 Miami Center
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 960-6907
Facsimile: (305) 385-7470
E-mail: kreilly@shb.com
- and -
Dave Erickson, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: derickson@shb.com
CHINA: Christenson Appeals Ruling in Reyes Suit to 11th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party David Christenson filed an appeal from various
court rulings entered in the lawsuit styled LOGAN ALTERS, MARTA
REYES, LAWRENCE WOOD, STEPHEN CLYNE and THE PITCHING LAB d/b/a TBT
TRAINING, on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; NATIONAL HEALTH
COMMISSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; THE PEOPLE'S
GOVERNMENT OF HUBEI PROVINCE; and THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF CITY
OF WUHAN, CHINA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21108-UUCHRISTEN, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 20,
2020, the lawsuit is brought against Defendants for their alleged
negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for conducting
ultrahazardous activity, and public nuisance in violations of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to the complaint, the world has been devastated in recent
days by the ongoing march of the new strain of the Coronavirus,
more commonly known as COVID-19, which began in Wuhan, Hubei
Province, China, in December 2019, and has quickly spread
throughout Asia, Europe and North America. However, the People's
Republic of China slowly acted, proverbially put their head in the
sand, and/or covered it up for their own economic self-interest
despite knowing that the virus was dangerous and capable of causing
a pandemic.
The complaint asserts that Defendants breached their duty to
Plaintiffs and the members of the classes by:
-- failing to admit their knowledge of the dangers of the
virus, its lethalness, and the ease of human to human
transmission;
-- failing to contain the virus more quickly when the spread
was apparent;
-- failing to restrict a public gathering of more than 40,000
Wuhan families when they knew or should have known of the dangers
of the virus and ease transmission;
-- failing to adequately and reasonably supervise the outbreak
and contain its effects;
-- failing to provide adequate and reasonable warning to
Plaintiffs and members of the classes when they knew or should have
known of the dangers; and
-- disseminating materials and statements that provided the
wrong information to people within and outside China.
The appellate case is captioned as Marta Reyes, et al v. David
Christenson, Case No. 20-13766, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
October 21, 2020 as to Appellant David Christenson; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before November 4, 2020 as to Appellee Marta Reyes.[BN]
Interested Party-Appellant DAVID CHRISTENSON, appears pro se.
Plaintiffs-Appellees MARTA REYES, on behalf of themselves, and all
those similarly situated; LAWRENCE WOOD, on behalf of themselves,
and all those similarly situated; STEPHEN CLYNE, on behalf of
themselves, and all those similarly situated; SB HOLDINGS I, LLC,
Orlando, FL; and THE PITCHING LAB LLC, on behalf of themselves, and
all those similarly situated d.b.a. TBT TRAINING, are represented
by:
Vincent Duffy, Esq.
Matthew Thomas Moore, Esq.
THE BERMAN LAW GROUP
PO Box 272789
Boca Raton, FL 33427
CHOBANI LLC: Nacarino Sues Over False Vanilla Labelling in Yogurt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELENA NACARINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHOBANI LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-07437 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
23, 2020) arises from the Defendant's false and misleading vanilla
representations of its vanilla yogurt products under the Chobani
brand in violation of the California Business & Professions Code
and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The complaint contends that despite the vanilla representations,
the product's vanilla flavor, is not entirely vanilla as its label
suggests. Further, the scientific testing of the product revealed
that the vanilla flavoring of the product does not come exclusively
from the premium ingredient known as the vanilla bean.
Plaintiff Nacarino purchased the product in 2020 from a whole foods
in San Francisco. She saw the vanilla representations and relied
upon them to believe that the vanilla flavor came exclusively from
the vanilla plant.
Chobani, LLC is an American food company specializing in strained
yogurt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd Ste 311
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CITY CHEVROLET: Gray Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGETTE GRAY, individually and one behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY CHEVROLET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00870-DGK (W.D. Mo., October 29, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In or around June 2020 or approximately four years after the
Plaintiff bought a vehicle from the Defendant, the Defendant began
making telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number in an attempt to solicit her to trade in her car and
purchase a new car from the Defendant. Although the Plaintiff told
the Defendant's salesperson who called her that she was not
interested, that her phone number is registered on the DNC, and
specifically asked for the calls to stop, the Defendant's
telemarketers still called her multiple times.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited calls have
harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her
phone.
City Chevrolet LLC operates a Chevrolet dealership in Kansas City,
Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donovan Bradley Dodril, Esq.
PLAZA INJURY LAW, LLC
Country Club Plaza
435 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 772-2474
Fax: (816) 977-2682
E-mail: donovan@plazainjurylaw.com
- and –
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (877) 333-9427
Fax: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
CNA FINANCIAL: Taiclet Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL A. TAICLET, DMD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01552-MRH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 8, 2020) is a
civil class action for declaratory relief and breach of contract
arising from the Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the
Defendants.
At the direction of local, state, and/or federal authorities,
and/or due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Plaintiff
was forced to temporarily close his dental office beginning on
March 19, 2020, causing an interruption to and loss of the
Plaintiff's business income.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class purchased
and paid for an "all-risk" commercial property coverage insurance
policy from the Defendants, which provides broad property insurance
coverage for all non-excluded, including business income losses.
The Plaintiff submitted timely notice of his claim to the
Defendants for the interruption to his business brought by COVID-19
mandated rules, but the Defendants have refused to provide the
purchased coverage to its insured, and has denied the Plaintiff's
claim for benefits under the policy.
CNA Financial Corporation is one of the largest commercial property
and casualty insurance companies in the United States. CNA is
headquartered in Illinois.
Transportation Insurance Company is a subsidiary of CNA, who
provides property and casualty underwriting for CNA. Transportation
Insurance Company is headquartered in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Howard M. Louik, Esq.
LOUIK LAW OFFICES
750 Washington Road, Unit 705
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Telephone: (412) 889-7541
Facsimile: (412) 391-7310
E-mail: howard@louiklaw.net
COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Freds Tire Balks at Unlawful Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRED'S TIRE AND BATTERY, LLC, and SHAWNEE OUTDOORS, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. COMPSOURCE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known as COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA, a
statutory agency, Case No. CJ-2020-4891 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma
Cty., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's illusory nature of
its insurance policy that cannot, under any reasonably expected set
of circumstances, provide coverage.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all current
and former insureds of CompSource residing or domiciled within the
state of Oklahoma who purchased a workers compensation insurance
policy containing "Part two-Employers Liability Insurance" from
January 1, 2004 to present and who paid an additional premium for
Part two coverage.
The Part two coverage contains the following coverage exclusion:
"BODILY INJURY INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR AGGRAVATED BY YOU, OR BODILY
INJURY THAT YOU KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN
TO OCCURE FROM AN ACT CAUSED, COMMITTED, OR AGGRAVATED BY YOU."
According to the complaint, Part two coverage purports to insure an
employer in the event employer is sued by an employee in district
court as a result of an injury that occurred during the course of
the employee's employment. The coverage afforded under Part two of
the Defendant's insurance policy is allegedly illusory in that this
coverage, for which a premium was paid, will not pay benefits under
any reasonable circumstances.
Additionally, by selling an illusory policy of insurance to its
policyholders, the Defendant has wrongfully obtained and retained
monies from its policyholders, in breach of its common law duties,
the suit says.
CompSource Mutual Insurance Company, formerly known as CompSource
Oklahoma, is a private mutual insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Terry W. West, Esq.
Bradley C. West, Esq.
J. Shawn Spencer, Esq.
THE WEST LAW FIRM
124 W. Higland PO Box 698
Shawnee, OK 74802-0698
Telephone: (405) 275-0040
Facsimile: (405) 275-0052
E-mail: terry@thewestlawfirm.com
brad@thewestlawfirm.com
shawn@thewestlawfirm.com
- and -
Reggie N. Whitten, Esq.
Michael Burrage, Esq.
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
E-mail: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com
mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Mullen Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Hospitality
Enterprises Company. The case is styled as BARTLEY MULLEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONCORD HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-RJC
(W.D. Pa., Oct. 9, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Robert J. Colville.
Concord Hospitality Enterprises Co, develops, owns, operates, and
manages hotels throughout the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Farrow Files Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Farrow and Jerome Wade filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled JOHN FARROW, ON HIS BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; JEROME WADE, ON HIS BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
Respondent, Case No. 20-549.
Response is due on November 25, 2020.
Petitioners John Farrow and Jerome Wade petition for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled John Farrow, et
al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 19-15152.
The Ninth Circuit entered judgment on March 30, 2020. On April 3,
2020, it extended time for filing a Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc to May 13, 2020. On June 5, 2020, it denied
Petitioner's timely motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. On
March 19, 2020, the Court issued an order extending time for filing
to 150 days from the date of the lower court judgment.
The questions presented are: i) Is a detainee's first appearance in
court a "critical stage" of the proceedings, when bail is set and
statutory liberty interests are adjudicated, as the Second and
Eighth Circuits and the highest courts of Connecticut, Maryland,
New York and Pennsylvania hold, or are the Fifth, Ninth and
Eleventh Circuits and the Supreme Courts of Alabama, Michigan,
Mississippi and Missouri correct in holding that the first court
appearance is not a "critical stage," enabling them to defer
appointment of counsel until a "critical stage," which may occur
weeks, months, or more than a year later? ii) Should this Court
formulate a standard for determining when counsel must be appointed
for indigent detainees under the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process
Clause, or Equal Protection Clause given that the federal courts of
appeals are irreconcilably divided on: (a) whether the Sixth
Amendment permits indefinite denial of counsel to detainees in the
absence of prejudice; (b) whether due process requires a counseled,
individualized bail hearing within 48 hours of arrest; and (c)
whether delayed representation violates equal protection; iii)
Should this Court exercise its supervisory power when: (a) the
District Court announced the standards of review after the matter
was submitted; (b) the District Court conducted a bench trial by
affidavit; (c) the Ninth Circuit failed to conduct de novo review
of the constitutional standards promulgated by the magistrate judge
answering the question left open by this Court in Rothgery v.
Gillespie Cty., Tex., 554 U.S. 191 (2008) concerning what standards
should apply in determining when delay in appointing counsel is
unreasonably long; and (d) the Ninth Circuit avoided ruling on the
potentially dispositive issue of whether the Heck preclusion
doctrine would bar a civil rights action based upon denial of
counsel at the "critical stage" of arraignment by erroneously
claiming that the issue was not argued in appellant's opening brief
and was, therefore, waived?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, John Farrow
and Jerome Wade brought the putative class action asserting a
number of claims based on the alleged failure of Defendant Contra
Costa County to provide appointed counsel at the Plaintiffs' first
court appearances, or within a reasonable time thereafter, in
criminal proceedings in state court. After multiple motions to
dismiss, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and remand to the Court,
the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are for failure to provide the
counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment within a reasonable time
after the right attached, and for a writ of mandamus to enforce
Contra Costa Public Defender Robin Lipetzky's obligations under
Section 27706 of the California Government Code.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners John Farrow, et al. are represented by:
Christopher Alan Martin, Esq.
MARTIN LAW OFFICES
607 Hearst Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94610
Telephone: (510) 206-2142
E-mail: M305@icloud.com
COOPERATIVE REGIONS: Collishaw Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Collishaw, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer
Pools, Case No. 7:20-cv-09009-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020) arises
from the Defendant's misleading front label representations of its
product, in violation of the New York General Business Law and the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
vanilla protein shake under its Organic Valley brand. The product
is available to consumers from retail and online stores of
third-parties and is sold in sizes including but not limited to
cartons of 11 OZ.
According to the complaint, the product's front label
representation of "Vanilla," and vignette of the vanilla flower and
cured vanilla beans "leads consumers to believe that it is flavored
with vanilla extract, or another vanilla flavoring derived solely
from vanilla beans, as defined in the federal standard of identity
when in fact it is not."
The representations of the product as "Vanilla" is misleading
because the "Organic Flavor" provides much of the product's vanilla
taste, yet this is not disclosed to consumers including the
Plaintiff, the suit says.
Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools sells a variety of
dairy products across all fifty states at locations including
grocery stores, convenience stores, and big box retailers with
principal place of business in La Farge, Wisconsin, Vernon
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CROWN CORK: Mimnaugh Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Mimnaugh, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v.
Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03762 (S.D. Tex.,
Nov. 4, 2020), alleges that the Crown Cork failed to pay Bruce
Mimnaugh and other workers like the Plaintiff overtime as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff contends that the unpaid payment included shift
differential pay and other non-overtime compensation that is
required to be calculated into the regular rate of pay for purposes
of determining the overtime rate.
Mimnaugh was an hourly employee of Crown Cork and currently resides
in Conroe, Texas. Mimnaugh worked for crown Cork from approximately
May 2017 until August 2020.
Crown Cork -- https://www.crowncork.com/ -- is one of the largest
packaging companies in the world. With operations in 47 countries
employing over 33,000 people and net sales of $11.7 billion, we are
uniquely positioned to bring best practices in quality and
manufacturing to growing economies in Asia, Eastern Europe, South
America and the Middle East and North Africa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP
2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 425-6445
Facsimile (713) 888-535-9271
E-mail: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com
- and -
Raphael Katri, Esq.
E-mail: RKatri@gmail.com
LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 940-2034
Facsimile: (310) 733-5644
CVS HEALTH: Mier Suit over Hand Sanitizers Moved to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH MIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH, Rhode Island corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01141024-CU-FR-CXC,
was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01979-DOC-ADS to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is a proposed putative class consists of "[a]ll persons
residing in the State of California who purchased CVS brand
hand-sanitizer during the period beginning four years from the date
of the filing of this complaint to the date of class certification.
The complaint purports to bring claims under the California's False
Advertising Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the
common law.
CVS Health is an American healthcare company that owns CVS
Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy
benefits manager; Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many
other brands. The company's headquarter is in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carol Brophy, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6700
Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
- and -
Melanie Ayerh, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 439-9400
Facsimile: (213) 439-9599
D. LOVES RESTAURANTS: Riley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stacie Riley on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. D. Loves Restaurants, LLC, a New
Mexico Limited Liability Company, and Donald Love and Jane Doe
Love, a married couple, Case No. 1:20-cv-01085-JFR-KK (D.N.M., Oct.
20, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Statutes
Ann. Minimum Wage Act, and the Albuquerque Minimum Wage Ordinance.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants: a) failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum
wages; b) maintained a policy or practice of paying its employee
servers sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip-credit provisions;
c) reduced the Plaintiff's and the collective members' compensation
to $5.65 per hour without providing them notice of their intent to
do so; and d) engaged in the regular practice of automatically
deducting $3.55 from the Plaintiff and the class members' pay for
each and every shift that they worked to pay for food regardless of
whether or not they ate during that shift or not.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server by the Defendants at their
Waffle House restaurant in New Mexico from approximately February
2020 through approximately June 20, 2020.
D. Love's Restaurants, LLC owns and operates several Waffle House
Restaurants in New Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
6000 Freedom Square Dr.
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com
DAY & ZIMMERMANN: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Waters Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled John Waters, Plaintiff, v.
Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-11585-NMG, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 13,
2020, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts denied Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to
Disqualify Judge with prejudice.
The case is a putative class action which arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Waters alleges that the
Defendant has failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the
law.
After his first motion to disqualify the judge was denied without
prejudice, the Plaintiff has filed a second motion to disqualify
and asks the judicial officer assigned to the session of the Court
to recuse himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 455. Before the
Court can consider the other pending motions in the case, it must
address the Plaintiff's second motion for recusal.
The Plaintiff states that one of his several attorneys, Attorney
Philip J. Gordon, represented an employee of Slade Gorton & Co.
Inc. in a potential litigation after she was discharged. In March,
2018, Attorney Gordon negotiated a Confidential Separation
Agreement whereby that employee received a severance package in
exchange for a release of her claims. That release included all
"directors, officers and employees." The Plaintiff claims that
because the judicial officer has a relationship with SG & Co.,
there is reason to question his impartiality in matters involving
Attorney Gordon and, therefore, he should recuse himself in the
case.
Judge Gorton held that judicial officer has a familial relationship
with SG & Co. and is recused from matters involving its retained
counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The Plaintiff does not, however,
allege (nor is it true) that the judicial officer has any
involvement in the day-to-day operation of the business or
awareness of the employment matter handled by Attorney Gordon. Nor
does he allege that the judicial officer has had any interaction
with Attorney Gordon with respect to that dispute.
The appellate case is captioned as JOHN WATERS, individually and
for others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAY &
ZIMMERMANN NPS, INC. Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1997, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form, transcript report/order form, and docketing statement are due
on November 12, 2020.[BN]
EAST COAST: Helwing Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tomsz Helwing filed an appeal from the District Court's
Final Order and Judgment dated September 21, 2020 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Michalow v. East Coast Restoration & &
Construction Consulting Corp., Case No. 09-cv-5475, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
Plaintiffs Dariusz Michalow, Sebastian Tkazyk, and Tomsz Helwing
commenced this action on December 15, 2009, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, against East Coast Restoration &
Consulting Corporation, Midtown Restoration Incorporated and Bozena
Barbara Marcisqak. Plaintiffs assert claims for unpaid overtime
compensation and spread-of-hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.
The appellate case is captioned as Michalow v. East Coast
Restoration & & Construction Consulting Corp., Case No. 20-3453, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Tomasz Helwing, of Howard Beach, NY, appears
pro se.
Defendants-Appellees East Coast Restoration & Consulting Corp.;
Midtown Restoration, Inc.; Bozena Barbara Marcisquak; East Coast
Installation & Consulting Corp.; East Coast Restoration &
Construction Consulting Corp.; Roofing Systems Consulting, Corp.;
Grzegorz Sobolewski; Andrzej Kaczmarek, 61-61 70 Street, Middle
Village, NY 11379; Marcin Podgorney; and Karol Marcisquak are
represented by:
Michael Marc Rabinowitz, Esq.
RABINOWITZ & GALINA
94 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 739-8222
E-mail: mwitz@optonline.net
- and -
Drew Sumner, Esq.
SUMNER LAW LLP
245 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 559-2966
Defendant-Appellee Bozena Barbara Marcisquak, of Branchberg, NJ,
appears pro se.
ELECTRIC BLUE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Lopez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, CARITA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ELECTRIC BLUE
L.L.C. d/b/a ELECTRIC BLUE CAFE, DENNING ENTERPRISES, INC., and
KENNETH DENNING, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01631 (D. Conn.,
October 29, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
employment practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer at an
adult entertainment club for over two years from November 2017 to
April 2019.
According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers the federally
mandated minimum wage or any other form of compensation because
they were illegally classified by the Defendants as independent
contractors to avoid paying them in accordance with the FLSA. They
were compensated exclusively through tips from the Defendants'
customers.
As independent contractors, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated exotic dancers were obliged by the Defendants to pay a
"house fee" per shift worked at the club, and required them to
perform private and semi-private dances under the pricing
guidelines, policies, procedures, and promotions set exclusively by
the Defendants. Aside from that, the Defendants required them to
share their tips with other non-service employees who do not
customarily receive tips.
Electric Blue L.L.C. and DENNING ENTERPRISES, INC. operate an adult
entertainment club under the name "Electric Blue Cafe" in Tolland,
Connecticut. Kenneth Denning is the owner/manager of both Corporate
Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart M. Katz, Esq.
COHEN AND WOLF, P.C.
1115 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 368-0211
Fax: (203) 337-5505
E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com
- and –
David W. Hodges, Esq.
William Rivers Wallace, Esq.
HODGES and FORTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
rwallace@hftrialfirm.com
ELECTRONIC EXPRESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRONICS EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09077 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State
Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law
(NYCHRL).
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website
the last occurring in October 2020, he has encountered multiple
access barriers which denied him full and equal access to its
facilities, goods and services offered to the public. Because the
Defendant allegedly failed to comply with the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Guidelines, thus it failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to the Website.
Electronics Express, Inc. is an electronics retail company that
owns and operates the said Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Pelletier Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Pelletier et al. v. Endo International PLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01839, was removed from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 20, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05263-MMB to the proceeding.
The lawsuit contends that the Defendants, Endo International PLC,
its former and present chief executive officers, and its chief
financial officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. The complaint asserts that Par
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo,
conspired with several other pharmaceutical companies to fix
generic drug prices in violation of the federal antitrust laws. It
alleges that Endo and its officers made false or misleading public
statements and failed to disclose or actively concealed material
adverse facts about Endo's business, operations, prospects and
revenue, artificially inflating Endo's share prices.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 844-7750
- and -
Thayne Stoddard, Esq.
BLELCHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square 27th Fl
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
The Defendants are represented by:
James E. Brandt, Esq.
Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
885-3RD AVE
New York, NY 10022-4834
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com
jeff.hammel@lw.com
- and -
John Thomas Ryan, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
12670 High Bluff Dr
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 523-3930
Facsimile: (858) 523-5450
- and -
Thomas J. Giblin, Esq.
GILBIN & LYNCH
2100 Morris Avenue
Union, NJ
EVOLUS INC: Malakouti Sues Over 37% Decline in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
ARMIN MALAKOUTI, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. EVOLUS, INC., DAVID MOATAZEDI, RUI AVELAR, and LAUREN
SILVERNAIL, Case No. 1:20-cv-08647 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) seeks
to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of Evolus stock between February
1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive.
According to the complaint, beginning in February 2019, Evolus
embarked on a public campaign to hype the market right before the
commercial launch of its sole leading product Jeuveau. To secure an
aggressive growth and a rapid influx of revenue, Evolus and the
individual Defendants disseminated dozens of public statements in
which they promoted Jeuveau as a proprietary formulation of the
botulinum toxic type A complex, purportedly developed by Korean
bioengineering company Daewoong through years of clinical research
and millions of dollars worth of investment in research and
development. Among other things, Evolus promised investors that it
would attain the number two U.S. market position within 24 months
of launch.
Throughout the Class period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational,
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as
well as the manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau
originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox; (ii)
sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that
Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau; (iii) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau; which in turn (iv) seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau in the United
States and generate revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from
the sale of Jeuveau were based on Evolus' unlawful activities,
including the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret
manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.
The complaint further asserts that the investing public learned the
real truth about Jeuveau on July 6, 2020 when the U.S.
International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued its Initial Final
Determination in a case brought by Allergan and Medytox against
Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole certain trade secrets to develop
Jeuveau. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge
recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus' ability to import
Jeuveau into the United States and a ten-year long cease and desist
order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau in the United States.
The news caused a precipitous and immediate decline in the price of
Evolus shares, which fell 37% over the course of two trading days,
to close at $3.35 on July 8, 2020, on unusually high trading
volume, the suit says.
Evolus, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Newport
Beach, California. The Company operates as a medical aesthetics
company, and develops, produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins
for the treatment of aesthetic concerns.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
FIRST NATIONAL: Lara Appeals Auto Insurance Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leeana Lara, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Leeana Lara, et al. v. First
National Insurance Compa, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 17,
2020, Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, (i) denied Defendant CCC
Information Services Incorporated's Expedited Motion to Compel
In-Person Depositions of Cameron Lundquist, Leeana Lara, and Lance
Kaufman and Extend the Case Schedule; and (ii) denied without
prejudice CCC's motion for a four-week extension of the case
schedule to conduct in-person depositions.
In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert that the
Defendants' practice of using unexplained and unjustified condition
adjustments to comparable vehicles when valuing a total loss claim
for a vehicle, violates the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"),
specifically WAC 284-30-391(4)(b) and (5)(d), and so constitutes:
(1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, (3) violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act and (4) civil conspiracy. The Plaintiffs seek
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The appellate case is captioned as Leeana Lara, et al. v. First
National Insurance Compa, et al., Case No. 20-80154, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner LEEANA LARA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and CAMERON LUNDQUIST are represented
by:
Steve Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN
1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John Michael DeStefano, III, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
11 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
Defendant-Respondent FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
New Hampshire Corporation; LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and CCC
INFORMATION SERVICES INC. are represented by:
John M. Silk, Esq.
WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON
901 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98164-2050
Telephone: (206) 623-4100
E-mail: silk@wscd.com
FOLGER COFFEE: Number of Servings Misleading, Tan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, a subsidiary of the J. M.
SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-09370 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2020)
is a consumer class action complaint against the Defendant for
unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices in violations of
the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False
Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant engages in false and
deceptive package labeling on its Folgers coffee product canisters
with respect to the promised number of coffee servings contained in
the package. The Defendant misrepresents the number of servings its
containers can provide in order to spur sales, and disadvantage
competitors who do not make similar claims. As a result, consumers
overpay, as they do not receive the number of coffee servings
Folgers represents to be present in the container, to the detriment
of the consumer.
By overpaying in this manner and failing to receive the benefit of
the bargain, the Plaintiff and the class members suffered monetary
injury, the suit says.
The Folger Coffee Company retails packaged coffee. The Company
offers ground, instant, single serve, and iced coffees through
through grocery stores, drug stores, and other large chain retail
stores, as well as online retailers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David N. Lake, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
A Professional Corporation
16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 788-5100
Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com
- and -
Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 685-0969
E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com
- and -
Beth A. Keller, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BETH A. KELLER, P.C.
118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100
Mount Kisco, NY 10549
Telephone: (914) 752-3040
E-mail: bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com
- and -
Emily Komlossy, Esq.
KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 842-2021
Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees Appeal Ruling to 6th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System filed an appeal
from a court ruling in its lawsuit entitled OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et
al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00160, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
District Judge Benita Y. Pearson on September 17, 2020, issued its
Judgment in favor of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and its
four senior officers -- Richard F. Syron, Patricia L. Cook, Anthony
S. Piszel and Eugene M. McQuade -- and against Plaintiff Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System on the Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint. The final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, resolves
both liability and damages.
According to Judge Pearson, the only way for OPERS to move forward
in the case would be to abandon price maintenance as its theory of
price impact, and attempt to show price impact at the time of the
misrepresentations and omissions through stock price movement.
Judge Pearson said OPERS is not prepared to and cannot proceed
individually on this basis. Judge Pearson said no additional
discovery or expert report is likely to change the Court's
determination that OPERS' price maintenance theory of liability
cannot be used to prove price impact.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 23,
2019, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court
of Appeals has denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal the
decision of the district court denying their motion for class
certification in the case, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al.
This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business, risk
management, and the procedures the company put into place to
protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.
The appellate case is captioned as Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System v. FHLMC, et al., Case No. 20-4082, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented
by:
Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DE MARCO
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, aka
Freddie Mac, RICHARD F. SYRON, PATRICIA L. COOK, ANTHONY S. PISZEL,
and EUGENE M. MCQUADE, are represented by:
Jason D. Frank, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 951-8153
E-mail: jason.frank@morganlewis.com
- and -
Hugh E. McKay, Esq.
PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR
950 Main Avenue, Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 443-9000
E-mail: hmckay@porterwright.com
- and -
Frank R. Volpe, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
E-mail: fvolpe@sidley.com
- and -
Carl Spencer Kravitz, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER
1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1800
E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com
- and -
Michael V. Rella, Esq.
MURPHY & MCGONIGLE
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 880-3973
E-mail: mrella@mmlawus.com
- and -
Michael S. Doluisio, Esq.
DECHERT
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 994-4000
E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com
GANNETT PUBLISHING: Aronson Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vicky Aronson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Vicky Aronson v. Gannett Publishing Services, et
al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00996-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 7,
2020, the Court entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
2. denying the Plaintiff's motions to strike; and
3. mooting the Defendant's motion to strike certification of
the Plaintiff's claims.
The Court said, "the Defendants have also moved for the Court to
deny class certification on Plaintiff's California Labor Code
violations. The Court need not reach the issue of whether common
questions predominate as to the substantive labor code violations.
To recover for substantive labor code violations, Plaintiff must
first establish that the Class Members are employees. To establish
that they are employees, Plaintiff must prevail on the
misclassification claim. As the Court explained above, the
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that common issues predominate as to
the misclassification claim. Therefore, regardless of how the Court
answers the predominance question in the context of the
wage-and-hour claims, individualized issues will invariably exist
as to the Plaintiff's threshold misclassification claim, rendering
the entire case unsuitable for class certification."
The appellate case is captioned as Vicky Aronson v. Gannett
Publishing Services, et al., Case No. 20-56077, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Vicky Aronson Mediation Questionnaire was due on
October 26, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 15, 2020;
-- Appellant Vicky Aronson opening brief is due on January 25,
2021;
-- Appellees Louis Cox, Does, Gannett Publishing Services, LLC
and LDC Distribution, LLC answering brief is due on February 25,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant VICKY ARONSON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
James Michael Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY LLP
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (760) 480-4162
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
jimt@potterhandy.com
Defendants-Appellees GANNETT PUBLISHING SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; LDC DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and LOUIS COX, an individual, are represented by:
Richard B. Lapp, Esq.
Camille Annette Olson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5914
E-mail: rlapp@seyfarth.com
colson@seyfarth.com
- and -
Bethany Pelliconi, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
E-mail: bpelliconi@seyfarth.com
- and -
Katelyn K. Empey, Esq.
Shaun M. Murphy, Esq.
SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY, LLP
1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Telephone: (760) 322-2275
E-mail: kempey@sbemp.com
murphy@sbemp.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William D. Pilgrim, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Minute Order dated September 1, 2020, entered in
the lawsuit entitled Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08047-JFW-E, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages for the Defendant's violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint concerns
purchasers or lessees of Corvette vehicles equipped with the LS7
7.0LV8 engine concerning model years 2006 to 2013. The vehicles
exhibited excessive valve guide wear which led to engine failures
and inspections and repairs.
The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on
October 14, 2015.
On March 16, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
continue the court's October 15, 2019 Scheduling Order in order to
permit mediation. The court issued an order modifying the schedule
on March 18, 2020, issuing new dates including a motion hearing
cut-off date of November 23, 2020, but not mentioning Civil Local
Rule 23-3, or any separate date for a class certification motion.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on August
27, 2020. Thereafter, on August 27, 2020, the Defendant filed its
Ex Parte application to strike Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Plaintiffs' class allegations or, in the
alternative, to extend the Defendant's deadline to respond. Despite
the fact that the parties had previously requested that the
district court set a date certain for the filing of the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the lack of clarity as to the
status of the 90-day requirement of Civil Local Rule 23-3, the
District Court issued a minute order on September 1, 2020, striking
the Plaintiffs' class allegations and motion for class
certification as being untimely.
The appellate case is captioned as Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et
al v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 20-56073, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Marc Adams, Shawn Bain, Adam Balducci, Lyle
Barkley, S. Garrett Beck, Robert L. Briggs, Roger L. Browning, Tuan
Bui, Ahmed J. Cannon, William Church, Aaron Clark, Christopher
Martin Constantine, Devry Davis, Lyle Dunahoo, Robert Edgar, Jan
Engwis, Estate of William D. Pilgrim, Mathew Evans, Michael
Fernandez, Alan Ferrer, Andres Frey, Robert Geiss, Walter Goetzman,
Bradley Grant, Roy Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Richard Jenkins, Frank L.
Juzswik, Jared Kiley, Jeff Kolodzi, Howard Kopel, Edwin William
Krause, John Lebar, Benjamin Luke, Jeffrey M. Millslagle, Robert C.
Murphy, James Osheim, Dennis Palmquist, John Parsons, Jerome E.
Pederson, Alan Pelletier, John Pendleton, David Penrod, Mike
Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel Quezada, Chad Reese, Edwin Rojas, Mark
Rowe, David Sheldon, Morris Smith, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke,
Derek Van Den Top, David Ward, Dallas Wicker and Jack Woodall
Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 23, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 15, 2020;
-- Appellants Marc Adams, Shawn Bain, Adam Balducci, Lyle
Barkley, S. Garrett Beck, Robert L. Briggs, Roger L. Browning, Tuan
Bui, Ahmed J. Cannon, William Church, Aaron Clark, Christopher
Martin Constantine, Devry Davis, Lyle Dunahoo, Robert Edgar, Jan
Engwis, Estate of William D. Pilgrim, Mathew Evans, Michael
Fernandez, Alan Ferrer, Andres Frey, Robert Geiss, Walter Goetzman,
Bradley Grant, Roy Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Richard Jenkins, Frank L.
Juzswik, Jared Kiley, Jeff Kolodzi, Howard Kopel, Edwin William
Krause, John Lebar, Benjamin Luke, Jeffrey M. Millslagle, Robert C.
Murphy, James Osheim, Dennis Palmquist, John Parsons, Jerome E.
Pederson, Alan Pelletier, John Pendleton, David Penrod, Mike
Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel Quezada, Chad Reese, Edwin Rojas, Mark
Rowe, David Sheldon, Morris Smith, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke,
Derek Van Den Top, David Ward, Dallas Wicker and Jack Woodall
opening brief is due on January 25, 2021;
-- Appellee General Motors LLC answering brief is due on
February 25, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM D. PILGRIM, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Andre Emilio Jardini, Esq.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
550 North Brand Boulevard
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 547-5000
Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by:
Andrew Holmer, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING, LLP
515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 622-4750
E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com
- and -
Gregory Oxford, Esq.
ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950
Torrance, CA 90503
Telephone: (310) 316-1990
E-mail: goxford@iccolaw.com
- and -
April N. Ross, Esq.
Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 624-2500
E-mail: aross@crowell.com
ksooy@crowell.com
GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas Sues Over Monopoly in Digital Ads Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND ATLAS LLC d/b/a GRAND ATLAS TOURS, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-03057 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' conduct of gaining an illegal monopoly in brokering
display advertising market in violation of the Sherman Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The complaint alleges that Google achieved the market dominance in
part by acquiring rivals in the online advertising space,
conditioning access to its search-results data and YouTube video
advertising platform upon the purchase of its separate display
advertising services, and ensuring those systems were not
compatible with those of its competitors in online advertising.
Because of its pervasive monopoly conduct, Google now controls the
"ad tech stack" comprising the intermediary services between
advertisers, who pay to place digital advertisements, and
publishers who are paid to publish those ads on their websites.
Additionally, companies that wish to place or publish online
advertisements have little choice but to pay Google for its
advertising services, including its instantaneous auction
platforms, and Google's monopolization of this intermediation
market has enabled it to favor its own advertising platforms and
products, the suit says.
As a result, the Plaintiff, like the other class members, suffered
economic losses due to Google's monopolization and seeks
appropriate equitable relief and damages through this action.
Plaintiff Grand Atlas LLC d/b/a Grand Atlas Tours is a private
guided tour business based in Washington, D.C. and incorporated in
Virginia. Grand Atlas paid Google directly for the placement of
digital advertisements during the class period.
Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies
and a search engine. Google is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Alphabet Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
dsharp@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
GOOGLE LLC: McNamara Sues Over Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN McNAMARA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-07361
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2020) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and California
antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws.
According to the complaint, while Google claims that the Android
operating system is maintained as "open" source software, Google
has engaged in course of conduct designed to deter competition in
the market for Android mobile applications or "apps" and products
sold with such apps. With control over the dominant Android OS,
Google exercised its monopoly power to establish the Google Play
Store as the dominant "store" by which other applications can be
downloaded for use by consumers on the Android ecosystem.
As a result of its monopolistic conduct, Google has extracted
supracompetitive prices for its Android app distribution services
and in-app purchases made through the Google Play Store, including
a 30% commission on sales of paid apps and a 30% fee for in-app
purchases. Google collects and processes these commissions and fees
directly from the Plaintiff and class members, remitting the
remainder of their payment to the mobile app developer, the suit
says.
Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies
and a search engine. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Alphabet Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tamarah P. Prevost, Esq.
Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tprevost@cpmlegal.com
nrahman@cpmlegal.com
HARLAND CLARKE: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLAND CLARKE CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09081 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website,
www.checks-superstore.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he
has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him full and
equal access to its facilities, goods and services offered to the
public. Because the Defendant allegedly failed to comply with the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Guidelines, thus it failed
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to the Website.
Harland Clarke Corp. is a bank check distributing company that owns
and operates the said Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Weiss Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE WEISS, D.M.D., PA v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
D/B/A THE HARTFORD and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No.
2:20-cv-14420-CCC-ESK (D.N.J., Oct. 14, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's denial of commercial insurance benefits due and owing
to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated that suffered
significant business interruption and substantial losses as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendants' insurance policy sold to and purchased by the
Plaintiff is a standard form business policy of insurance for which
the COVID-19 event is not excluded.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff contracted for and
secured insurance that covered losses sustained due to the
interruption of business operations but, astonishingly, the
Defendants take the position that the COVID-19 events -- and the
direct losses that were caused due to decisions by governmental
authorities and other public health officials as a result of the
pandemic -- are not covered events entitling the Plaintiff to
coverage under the policies it paid for. The Defendants have, on a
widespread and uniform basis, allegedly refused to compensate their
insureds under their Business Income Coverage and Civil Authority
Coverage for losses incurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or due
to any orders by civil authorities requiring the suspension or
curtailment of insureds' businesses.
As a result, this action is brought for breach of contract for the
Defendants' failure to pay insurance proceeds that were and are
owing to the Plaintiff under the policies, as well as by the
Defendants to the class under the declarations.
The Plaintiff is a dental office based in North Bergen, New
Jersey.
Hartford Financial Services Group d/b/a The Hartford is a
Connecticut-based company that owns various subsidiaries that issue
insurance, including but not limited to property and business
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
Michael Liskow, Esq.
Justin Teres, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5803
Telephone: (212) 969-7811
Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
jteres@calcaterrapollack.com
HEALTHY BEVERAGE: Pierre Sues Over 'Lightly Sweetened' Label
------------------------------------------------------------
LAMARTINE PIERRE JR., DANIELLE GRAHAM, AMIE DELEON, JESSE GONZALEZ,
JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ, VALERIE WELLS, STEPHANIE SMITH, SHANNON HOOD,
SHANNA HER, MELANIE BARBER, CHRISTOPHER MORGAN, and MOLLY BROWN on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
HEALTHY BEVERAGE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04934-GJP (E.D.
Pa., Oct. 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendant falsely and
misleadingly advertised and marketed its iced tea beverages to
consumers including the Plaintiffs by labeling it as "Lightly
Sweetened."
According to the complaint, the Defendant's "Lightly Sweetened"
representation it specifically makes on the product label is
understood by consumers that such a product is in fact low in
sugar. Instead, the Defendant's product is high in sugar which
directly contradicts the sugar content representation Defendant
prominently makes on its label.
The Plaintiffs and other putative class members were harmed by
paying a premium for the advertised product and only receiving an
inferior product that in no way conformed to the "Lightly
Sweetened" representation on the label, the suit says.
The Healthy Beverage Company, LLC is a Doylestown,
Pennsylvania-based beverage company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60630
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
HENRY SCHEIN: Dropped as Defendant in Marion Diagnostic Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that plaintiffs in
Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and
Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, subsequently dropped Henry
Schein as a defendant in their amended complaint.
On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion
Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson,
and Co. ("Becton'); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc.
("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc.
("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor
Co-Conspirators.
The complaint alleged that the defendants entered into a vertical
conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term
exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide
markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV
catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to
above-competitive levels.
The named plaintiffs sought to represent three separate classes
consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's
conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii)
Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient,
Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014.
The complaint asserted a single count under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and sought equitable relief, treble damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.
On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same
allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc. as a defendant.
On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs’
complaint with prejudice.
On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties
argued the appeal on September 27, 2019.
On March 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege the necessary conspiracy by the
defendants, but should be provided an opportunity to amend their
complaint.
The Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment, and
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion. Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Henry Schein as a
defendant in their amended complaint.
Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.
HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the
City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System.
On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood Police Officers
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein,
Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola
(Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM.
The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or
otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019
through August 12, 2019.
The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the
Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in
February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that
defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the
transaction were materially false and misleading because they
purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory
management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of
integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First
Choice, understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein,
and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly
large customer in North America just before the Separation and
Merger.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020. Lead plaintiff added
Steve Paladino, the company's Chief Financial Officer, as a
defendant in the action.
Lead plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
on May 21, 2020, in which it added a claim that Mr. Paladino is a
"control person" of Covetrus.
Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."
Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in Salkowitz Securities Suit Now Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that order and judgment
approving the settlement in the consolidated class action suit
initiated by Joseph Salkowitz is now final.
On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.
The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that
the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements
about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the
Class Period, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the
purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry
Schein securities.
Those alleged statements included matters relating to the issues in
the In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, which Henry Schein
settled and which the court dismissed in June 2019, and in the
United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") administrative
proceeding, in which an administrative law judge ruled in Henry
Schein's favor in October 2019 after a trial, as described in the
company's prior filings with the SEC.
The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number.
Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint
asserted similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy
Sullivan) on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during
the Class Period. It alleged that Henry Schein's stock price had
been inflated during that period because Henry Schein had
misleadingly portrayed its dental-distribution business "as
successfully producing excellent profits while operating in a
highly competitive environment" even though, "in reality, (Henry
Schein) had engaged for years in collusive and anticompetitive
practices in order to maintain Schein's margins, profits, and
market share."
The complaint alleged that the stock price started to fall from
August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial
performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results
were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume
and margins through anticompetitive collusion,' through February
13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry
Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust
laws. The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially
granting and partially denying defendants' motion to dismiss the
securities action. The court dismissed all claims against Messrs.
Bergman and Paladino as well as the Section 10(b) claim against
Henry Schein to the extent that that claim relied on the Company's
financial results and margins to allege a material misstatement or
omission.
The court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against Henry
Schein to the extent that it relied on the Company's August 8, 2017
disclosure to allege loss causation. The court otherwise denied the
motion as to Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan. Henry Schein and Mr.
Sullivan moved for partial reconsideration of the court's decision.
Pursuant to all parties' request, the court temporarily took the
motion off the calendar after it was fully briefed. The parties
later agreed to resolve this matter in exchange for a cash payment
of $35 million, which would be covered by the Company's insurance
and would have no earnings impact to the Company.
The Court held a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement on
September 16, 2020 and approved it later that day. The order and
judgment approving the settlement have become final.
Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Duran Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERASAMO DURAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00445-RP (W.D.
Tex.), the Parties ask the Court for an order granting conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act of the following
class:
"Individuals who performed work for Hill Country Staffing
Company LLC as Equipment Operator and/or other hourly non-
exempt employeesfrom April 27, 2017 to the present."
The Parties have further agreed to and propose the following
schedule:
-- 10 business days from the order approving notice to
Potential Class Members
Defendant to provide to Plaintiff ’s Counsel in Excel
(.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
Putative Class Members: full name; last known
address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; last known
e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable);
beginning date(s) of engagement; and ending date(s) of
engagement (if applicable).
-- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
Members
Plaintiff’s Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.
-- 30 days from order approving notice to Potential Members
Plaintiff ’s Counsel may resend a copy of the Court-
approved Class Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.
-- 60 days from mailing of Notice to Potential Class Members
The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days from the
initial and Consent Forms mailing of the Court-approved
Notice to return their signed Consent forms to
Plaintiff ’s Counsel for filing with the Court.
Hill Country Staffing connects qualified workers in the oil and gas
industry with companies that need them.
A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3eypSiA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
E-mail: JFitapelli@fslawfirm.com
Fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
The Defendant is represeted by:
Bruce A. Griggs, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (915) 541-1513
E-mail: bruce.griggs@ogletree.com
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Winnie Appeals D. P.R. Ruling to First Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jonathan Winnie filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled JONATHAN WINNIE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HILTON
WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL OF PUERTO RICO, PARK
HOTELS & RESORTS INC., and PUERTO RICO CARIBE LESSEE LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01859-SCC, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico, San Juan.
Judge Silvia L. Carreno-Coll of the Puerto Rico District Court
entered on August 12, 2020, a Judgment in favor of the Defendants
and against Plaintiff. Judge Carreno-Coll denied a Motion to Stay
the case and a Motion to Change Venue, both as moot. She granted a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 3, 2019,
Defendants Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Park Hotels & Resorts,
Inc., Hilton International of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Puerto Rico
Caribe Lessee, LLC own and/or operate the Caribe Hilton resort in
San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Defendants charged their guests resort
fees calculated as a percentage of the applicable room rate,
despite the fact that these resort fees are intended to compensate
the hotel owner for certain fixed-cost amenities. As a result of
this practice, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the
Plaintiff's expense and the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of all
amounts by which the Defendants have been so enriched.
The appellate case is captioned as Winnie v. Hilton Worldwide
Holdings, Inc, et al., Case No. 20-1927, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JONATHAN WINNIE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jane A. Becker Whitaker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
PO Box 9023914
San Juan, PR 00902-3914
Telephone: (787) 945-2406
- and -
Brandon McCaull Bohlman, Esq.
John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
5015 Grand Ridge Dr Ste 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St, Ste 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
Telephone: (800) 424-6690
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
HM SANDOVAL: Faces Morales Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HM Sandoval Flc, Inc.
The case is styled as Maria Morales, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. Bella Vigna Farms, Inc., a California
corporation; Delu Vineyards, Inc., a California corporation; Does
1-20; and HM Sandoval Flc, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
34-2020-00287251-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 19,
2020).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
HM Sandoval Flc, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from California.
Bella Vigna Farms, Inc. is a registered motor carrier located in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Eric S. Trabucco, Esq., at
ADVOCATES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS LLP.
INSPERITY INC: Defends Building Trades Pension Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a federal securities class action suit
initiated by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania.
In July 2020, a federal securities class action was filed against
the company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The name of the case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05635-NRB.
On October 23, 2020, the court issued an order appointing Oakland
County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust as lead plaintiff.
The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs, and such other relief that may be
deemed proper.
Insperity said, "We believe the allegations in the action are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation.
As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no
provision has been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements."
Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
INSPERITY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
overseeing the class action suit related to its 401(k) retirement
plan has set the final approval hearing for March 5, 2021.
In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee
(the "Co-Defendant") of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that
is available to eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan participants.
The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of
the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan
participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to
pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by
failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent
investment choices.
The court certified a class defined as "all participants and
beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009
through September 30, 2017."
The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to
the selection of an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper of the Plan. On March 28, 2019, the court partially
granted Insperity's motion for summary judgment, resulting in the
dismissal of the claims concerning allegations of excessive
recordkeeping fees.
The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and set a
bench trial, which was held from March 2, 2020 to March 13, 2020.
At trial, the plaintiffs alleged damages up to approximately $146
million against all defendants. All parties filed proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law on June 15, 2020.
On September 18, 2020, the plaintiffs and Co-Defendant informed the
court that they reached an agreement in principle to settle the
entire case, including a full and final release of all claims
against Insperity.
Insperity did not participate in the settlement discussions and
will make no financial contribution to the settlement.
In connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs and Co-Defendant
filed a motion to extend the class period to March 31, 2019, which
the court granted. The court has also granted preliminary approval
of the settlement and has set the final approval hearing on March
5, 2021.
Insperity said, "As a result of the uncertainty regarding the
outcome of this matter and the subsequent settlement agreement
that, if approved by the court, will end the case with no financial
contribution from Insperity, no provision has been made in the
accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements."
Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
IQVIA INC: Appeals Order in Mussat TCPA Suit to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant IQVIA Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of United States
a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled IQVIA
INC., Petitioner, v. FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D. S.C., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Case No.
20-510.
Response is due on November 16, 2020.
Petitioner IQVIA Inc. filed the petition to review the judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the
case titled FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IQVIA, INC.,
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1204.
The question presented is: Whether a district court with
jurisdiction coextensive with a state court in the district can
exercise personal jurisdiction over absent class members' claims as
part of a putative class action when the court concededly could not
exercise personal jurisdiction over the absent class members'
claims if they had been brought in individual suits.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the
district court granting IQVIA's motion to strike the class
definition.
Mussat, an Illinois physician doing business through a professional
services corporation, received two unsolicited faxes from IQVIA, a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Pennsylvania. These
faxes failed to include the opt-out notice required by federal
statute. Mussat's corporation (to which we refer simply as Mussat)
brought a putative class action in the Northern District of
Illinois under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, on behalf of
itself and all persons in the country who had received similar junk
faxes from IQVIA in the four previous years. IQVIA moved to strike
the class definition, arguing that the district court did not have
personal jurisdiction over the non-Illinois members of the proposed
nationwide class.
The district court granted the motion to strike, reasoning that
under the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court, not just the named Plaintiff, but also the unnamed
members of the class, each had to show minimum contacts between the
defendant and the forum state. Because IQVIA is not subject to
general jurisdiction in Illinois, the district court turned to
specific jurisdiction. Applying those rules, it found that it had
no jurisdiction over the claims of parties who, unlike Mussat, were
harmed outside of Illinois.
The Court granted Mussat's petition to appeal from that order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Seventh Circuit now
reaffirms the Rule 23(f) order, and holds that the principles
announced in Bristol-Myers do not apply to the case of a nationwide
class action filed in federal court under a federal statute. The
Seventh Circuit finds that Bristol-Myers neither reached nor
resolved the question whether, in a Rule 23 class action, each
unnamed member of the class must separately establish specific
personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In holding otherwise, the
district court failed to recognize the critical distinction between
the case and Bristol-Myers.
The proper characterization of the status of absent class members
depends on the issue. The Seventh Circuit sees no reason why
personal jurisdiction should be treated any differently from
subject-matter jurisdiction and venue: the named representatives
must be able to demonstrate either general or specific personal
jurisdiction, but the unnamed class members are not required to do
so.
It brings to IQVIA's second major point: that allowing the non-
Illinois unnamed class members to proceed would be inconsistent
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k), which governs service of
process. The Seventh Circuit holds that IQVIA is mixing up the
concepts of service and jurisdiction. The rules for class
certification support a focus on the named representative for
purposes of personal jurisdiction.
Finally, it is worth recalling that the Supreme Court in
Bristol-Myers expressly reserved the question whether its holding
extended to the federal courts at all. In addition, the opinion
does not reach the question whether its holding would apply to a
class action. Fitting this problem into the broader edifice of
class-action law, the Seventh Circuit is convinced that it is one
of the areas Scardelletti identified in which the absentees are
more like nonparties, and thus there is no need to locate each and
every one of them and conduct a separate personal-juris-diction
analysis of their claims.
Despite its insistence to the contrary, IQVIA urges a major change
in the law of personal jurisdiction and class actions. This change
is not warranted by the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers,
nor by the alternative arguments based on Rule 4(k) that IQVIA puts
forth.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court,
and remanded for further proceedings.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner IQVIA Inc. is represented by:
Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
E-mail: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
JAKOV DULCICH: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jakov Dulcich and
Sons, LLC. The case is styled as Hipolito Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jakov Dulcich and
Sons, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, Case No.
BCV-20-102415 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Oct. 14, 2020).
The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
A case management conference is set for April 14, 2021 before Judge
David R. Lampe.
Jakov Dulcich and Sons, LLC provides fruit farming services. The
Company offers grapes farming and growing services. Jakov Dulcich
and Sons operates in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
1180 S Beverly Dr Ste 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
JP CYCLES: Faces Johnson-Owen Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON A. JOHNSON-OWEN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. JP CYCLES, INC. d/b/a Seminole Power Sports
and LONGWOOD LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC. d/b/a Parks Lincoln of Longwood,
Case No. 6:20-cv-01984 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and the
class members time-and-a-half for each overtime hour worked since
the Defendants had misclassified them as employees exempt from the
FLSA; failed to maintain and keep accurate time records; and failed
to post the required notice pursuant to the federal law.
Mr. Johnson-Owen further asserts that the Defendants failed to
notify him of his eligibility to take Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) leave during his absence, even though they were aware that
he suffered from diabetes at the beginning of his employment.
The Plaintiff was employed as a service advisor by the Defendants
from approximately January 2019 until February 27, 2020.
Based in Florida, JP Cycles, Inc., d/b/a Seminole Power Sports, is
in the business of selling and servicing motorcycles, all-terrain
vehicles, and personal watercraft.
Longwood Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. operates as a car dealer. The
Company offers retail sale of new and used automobiles, as well as
provides parts and accessories and financing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Adams, Esq.
N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
2300 East Concord Street
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 835-8968
Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
rlabar@labaradams.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Quinn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Quinn, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated September 21, 2020, and Judgment
dated September 22, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES
QUINN d/b/a Q FINANCIAL SERVICES; FAHMIA, INC.; and PRINZO &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., d/b/a CHASE BANK; and
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20-cv-4100, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to comply with
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that
requires the Plaintiffs to pay out of the compensation they
received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans, for
services the Plaintiffs and a large number of other agents rendered
on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency
loans.
According to the complaint, the Defendants apparently decided that
they do not need to complete the final step of the process and
based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents who
assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice
seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though
they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application
process, the Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any
questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in
completing applications.
The Plaintiffs contend that the refusal is harming accountants,
attorneys, and other agents, who dropped everything (in the midst
of tax season), to assist their customers in filling out these
vital loan applications correctly and in compliance with the PPP,
and who were specifically only allowed to be paid for these
services out of the compensation paid to the lender.
The appellate case is captioned as Quinn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., Case No. 20-3588, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Fahmia, Inc.; Prinzo & Associates, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Robin
Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, DBA CG Johnson Company; and James Quinn are represented
by:
Anne Brackett Shaver, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ashaver@lchb.com
Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., DBA Chase Bank;
JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Signature Bank; MUFG Union Bank, N.A.;
Citibank, N.A.; Citigroup Inc.; and MUFG Americas Holding Co. are
represented by:
Sylvia Simson, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
MetLife Building
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 801-9275
E-mail: simsons@gtlaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: esacksteder@paulweiss.com
- and -
Andrew Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1 CityCenter
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5066
E-mail: asoukup@cov.com
- and -
Christopher J. Houpt, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2380
E-mail: choupt@mayerbrown.com
KING-TILLER LLC: Fields Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNANORA L. FIELDS, on Her Behalf, and on Behalf of a Group of
Similarly Situated Employees v. KING-TILLER, LLC, THOMASINA R.
TILLER-KING. a/k/a THOMASINA R. TILLER, and WILLIE COACHMAN, Case
No. 115637643 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 26, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Whistleblower Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay legally
required regular, minimum and/or overtime wages under FLSA. She
asserts that she and all other employees similarly situated were
paid hourly, not paid a salary, not paid time and one-half pay, or
even regular pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, and were not paid anything if they did not work.
The Plaintiff further contends that King-Tiller retaliated against
her for opposing, and refusing to participate in, an activity that
was illegal.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as the assistant
director for the childcare facility operated by King-Tiller in
Tampa, Florida from April 2017 to on or about April 22, 2020.
King-Tiller LLC is a company located in Tampa, Florida which
provides child day care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., Esq.
ALL FLORIDA JUSTICE, LLC
4495-304 Roosevelt Blvd, #202
Jacksonville, FL 32210
Telephone: (904) 552-5500
Facsimile: (904) 398-1568
E-mail: Don@AllFloridaJustice.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Penegar Sues Over Unreimbursed Medicare Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARRA JANE PENEGAR, Executrix of the Estate of JOHNNY RAY PENEGAR,
JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., and ISO CLAIMS PARTNERS, INC.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00585 (W.D.N.C., October 23, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' uniform systems and practices for failing to reimburse
Medicare claims for the Plaintiff and other claimants.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's decedent, her husband
Mr. Penegar, was over age 65 and a Medicare beneficiary when he was
diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma. He
received medical care covered by Medicare, which extended his life.
He brought a workers' compensation claim against the employer at
whose workplace he was exposed to asbestos in the past, alleging
that this workplace exposure was a proximate cause of his
mesothelioma diagnosis. He also named in that claim Liberty Mutual
as the workers' compensation carrier in that matter. However, the
employer and its insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual, denied the
claim. Medicare ran up a significant bill covering the
chemotherapy, surgery and other treatment for Mr. Penegar's
illness.
The co-counsel litigated Mr. Penegar's workers' compensation claim,
first as a living claim while he was alive, then with a death claim
added after he died. While Liberty Mutual contested its duty to pay
Mr. Penegar's medical expenses, it lost that battle. The North
Carolina Industrial Commission found that Liberty Mutual was
obligated to cover Mr. Penegar's medical expenses and to reimburse
Medicare. That finding was made by the Deputy Commissioner in an
order dated April 2016 more than four years ago. That order was
affirmed and is binding. However, within the time period when it
was supposed to do so, Liberty Mutual not reimbursed Medicare, the
suit says.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.,
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Mutual Group, Inc. are
insurance providers in the U.S.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. conducts risk assessment services and
decision analytics. The Company offers data, statistical, and
actuarial services, as well as standardized insurance policy
programs, underwriting information, and rating-integrity tools.
ISO Claims Partners provides Medicare compliance and claims
resolution services to property/casualty insurance companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vernon Sumwalt, Esq.
THE SUMWALT GROUP
Post Office Box 31424
Charlotte, NC 28231-1424
Telephone: (704) 565-0621
Facsimile: (704) 599-1783
E-mail: vernon@sumwaltgrp.com
- and -
William Graham, Esq.
Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
Ed Pauley, Esq.
John Hughes, Esq.
WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA
525 N. Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Telephone: (704) 633-5244
E-mail: bgraham@wallacegraham.com
mwallace@wallacegraham.com
epauley@wallacegraham.com
jhughes@wallacegraham.com
LIVE WELL: Shakespeare Appeals E.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Margaret Shakespeare filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated October 13, 2020, issued in her lawsuit
entitled Shakespeare v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Case No.
18-cv-7299, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 9,
2020, Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
proposed class action over allegedly improper payments made by Live
Well Financial, Inc. for borrowers' property taxes has been closed
indefinitely after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York dismissed all claims against the only viable
defendants.
If Live Well emerges from ongoing involuntary bankruptcy
proceedings, and plaintiff Margaret Shakespeare can articulate a
plausible claim against the reverse mortgage lender, the court will
reopen proceedings, Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein said in one of three
related orders issued on Sept. 15.
Each order adopted findings and recommendations made by Magistrate
Judge Anne Y. Shields, without modification, dismissing claims.
The appellate case is captioned as Shakespeare v. Live Well
Financial, Inc., Case No. 20-3533, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Margaret Shakespeare, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph Seth Tusa, Esq.
TUSA P.C.
P.O. Box 566
Southold, NY 11971
Telephone: (631) 407-5100
E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee Live Well Financial, Inc.;
Compu-Link Corporation, DBA Celink; and Reverse Mortgage Funding,
LLC are represented by:
Jennifer L. Gray, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 614-7340
E-mail: JGray@hinshawlaw.com
- and -
Maya Ginsburg, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 262-6700
E-mail: mginsburg@lowenstein.com
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LA'RIA CHAPMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-12875-AJT-APP (E.D. Mich., Oct. 28, 2020) seeks to recover
overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the state laws of Michigan.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant's illegal company-wide
policy has caused the Plaintiff and the putative class members to
have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a
miscalculation of their regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating their overtime compensation each workweek.
The Plaintiff and the Michigan class members are entitled to
recover their unpaid "straight time" or "gap time" wages for
services rendered on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to Michigan
Common Law, the suit says.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its call center
located in Southfield, Michigan from approximately August 2019
until April 2020.
LogistiCare Solutions LLC provides non-emergency medical
transportation management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
NDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Jennifer McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI
Telephone: (248) 658-8951
Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
LOWE'S HOME: McPhee Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fourth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rebecca McPhee, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SCOTT ALMINIANA, STACEY
PFLUG, REBECCA McPHEE, KATIE SHOOK, AND IRIS TIRADO, Plaintiffs, v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-CV-00010-KDB-DSC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina at Statesville.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on September
18, 2020, Judge Kenneth Bell of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina adopted Magistrate Judge David
Cayer's Memorandum and Decision ("M&R") and thus granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Scott Alminiana and Stacey Pflug are dismissed as Plaintiffs and
compelled to arbitrate their claims in accordance with their
arbitration agreements with Defendant, Judge Bell ordered in June
26, 2020.
The lawsuit seeks an award of unpaid wages and liquidated damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
various state labor statutes.
The appellate case is captioned as Rebecca McPhee v. Lowe's Home
Centers, LLC, Case No. 20-2135, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 1, 2020; and
-- Response Brief is due on December 31, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants REBECCA MCPHEE, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals; KATIE SHOOK, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; and IRIS
TIRADO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
One Towne Square
Southfield, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jthompson@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
2 International Drive
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
fran@klafterolsen.com
- and -
James J. Mills, Esq.
BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, PA
P. O. Box 10867
Raleigh, NC 27605-0000
Telephone: (919) 782-1441
E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com
Defendant-Appellee LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC is represented by:
Adam Doerr, Esq.
ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28246
Telephone: (704) 377-8114
E-mail: adoerr@robinsonbradshaw.com
- and -
Naima Lillian Farrell, Esq.
Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq.
Molly Trustman Senger, Esq.
Greta Bradlee Williams, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
E-mail: nfarrell@gibsondunn.com
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
msenger@gibsondunn.com
gbwilliams@gibsondunn.com
MARKEL AMERICAN: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. MARKEL
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, EVANSTON
INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., AND
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24063-CMA
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to
meet the statutory payment and reimbursement obligations of the
Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly situated under the
Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have
also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the class members for
accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements
with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.
The Defendants are auto and/or other liability insurers that
provide either no-fault or med-pay insurance to their customers,
including Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Part C of the
Medicare Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Michael O. Mena, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd. 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Alfredo Armas, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran, Esq.
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE
4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
fzincone@armaslaw.com
MARKOFF LAW: Faces Fleming FDCA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Markoff Law LLC. The
case is styled as Diana Fleming, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Markoff Law LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06092 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2020).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
The case is assigned to the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.
Markoff Law LLC operates as a law firm. The Company practices in
the areas such as consumer and commercial debt collection,
repossession, enforcement of judgment, commercial litigation, proof
of claims, evictions, and creditors rights in bankruptcy. Markoff
Law serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 757-1880
E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
- and -
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-6160
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Misclassifies IT Personnel, Walker Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WALKER and GERALD HICKOX; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, Case No. 20-2353-G (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 14,
2020) alleges that the Defendant violated the Massachusetts General
Laws by failing to classify the Plaintiffs and other persons
performing information technology services as employees.
The complaint contends that the Defendant systematically failed to
classify many of its information technology personnel as employees
in order to save on wage and benefits payments. By failing to
classify the Plaintiffs as MBTA's employees, the Defendant denied
them benefits to which they would have been entitled as an
employee, including paid time off, travel expenses, liability and
worker's compensation insurance, health benefits, retirement
benefits, other "fringe benefits" and employer tax contributions.
Plaintiffs Walker and Hickox were employed by the Defendant as
Information Technology personnel in Massachusetts from in or about
July 7, 2016 until in or about July 22, 2019, and from in or about
November 23, 2016 until in or about January 30, 2017, respectively.
Both were not classified as MBTA employees during their tenure.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), is a
legislatively created entity, under Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 161A. It was created to "provide mass transportation
service" within the Commonwealth, including commuter rail
transportation and bus, subway and trolley service in and around
Boston.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Regan, Esq.
EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
185 Devonshire Street, Ste. 200
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 277-0902
Facsimile: (857) 233-5287
E-mail: jregan@maemployeerights.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Strom, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY S. STROM
P.O. Box 916
Boylston, MA 01505
Telephone: (508) 925-5525
E-mail: jeffrey@jeffreystromlaw.com
MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Delisle Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Kelsey Delisle and Kaitlyn Pennington, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. McKendree
University, Case No. 20-L-685, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court for the County of St. Clair to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on October 12, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01073-RJD to the proceeding.
McKendree University is a private university in Lebanon, Illinois.
Founded in 1828 as the Lebanon Seminary, it is the oldest college
or university in Illinois. McKendree enrolls approximately 2,300
undergraduates and nearly 700 graduate students representing 25
countries and 29 states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel Scott Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5799
Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle P Seelbach, Esq.
Aleksandra Ostojic Rushing, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - ST. LOUIS
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105-3433
Telephone: (314) 480-1500
Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
E-mail: kyle.seelbach@huschblackwell.com
aleks.rushing@huschblackwell.com
MD CBD: Marantz Sues Over Rent Overcharge
-----------------------------------------
RUTH MARANTZ and ANTONIO CHECCO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MD CBD 180 FRANKLIN LLC, Case No.
521055/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Oct. 29, 2020) alleges that
the Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to comply with the
requirements of the 421-a Program by, among other things,
improperly registering the apartments with the Division of Housing
and Community Renewal (DHCR), in violation of the Rent
Stabilization Law.
In 1971, the New York State Legislature enacted the Real Property
Tax Law Section 421-a, which provides tax incentives for developers
who construct new, market-rate, multi-family housing.
The Plaintiff, who resides in Apartment 511 at 180 Franklin Avenue,
alleges that the Defendant has evaded the 421-a Program's
requirements and governing rent stabilization laws, in two ways,
both through the improper use of concessions. First, the initial
legal regulated rent to be registered for an apartment in a 421-a
building must be the "monthly rent charged and paid by the tenant,"
and all subsequent rent increases are to be derived from that
payment. But the Defendant hoodwinked tenants, and DHCR, by
registering a legal regulated rent higher than the "monthly rent
charged and paid by the tenant." Second, the Defendant utilizes
what amounts to a "double" preferential rent. For the Plaintiff's
renewal lease, commencing after the enactment of the Housing
Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), the Defendant
pulled her concession, and wrongfully increased her rent from
$2,484.44 to $2,836.93 for a one-year lease.
The Defendant's conduct demonstrates an attempt to circumvent the
requirements of law, all at the expense of the tenants residing at
the building, the suit says.
MD CBD 180 Franklin LLC is the owner-in-fee of the apartment
building located at 180 Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
E-mail: ferrara@nfllp.com
rsachar@nfllp.com
MDL 2796: Audubon Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Audubon Imports, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Audubon Imports, LLC,
d/b/a Mercedes Benz of Baton Rouge, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW
North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG,
Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, Lead Case No. 3:17-md-02796-CRB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
consolidated in the Multidistrict Litigation No. 2796.
The case asserts that the Defendants are engaged in a cartel to
artificially generate supra-competitive profits by agreeing to
reduce product quality, deter innovation, and not fully compete
against each other for sales of millions of passenger cars that
they sold in the United States.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Audubon Imports, LLC, et
al v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktie, et al., Case No. 20-17139, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Audubon Imports, LLC, Autohaus Acquisition, Inc.,
Bronsberg & Hughes Pontiac, Inc., Estate Motors, Inc., Powders
Automobiles, Inc., Tom Schmidt, Team Imports, LLC and Wyoming
Valley Motors, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 6,
2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 30, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 30, 2020;
-- Appellants Audubon Imports, LLC, Autohaus Acquisition, Inc.,
Bronsberg & Hughes Pontiac, Inc., Estate Motors, Inc., Powders
Automobiles, Inc., Tom Schmidt, Team Imports, LLC and Wyoming
Valley Motors, Inc. opening brief is due on February 8, 2021;
-- Appellees Audi Aktiengesellschaft, Audi of America, Inc.,
Audi of America, LLC, BMW of North America, LLC, BMW(US) Holding
Corp., Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, Daimler
Aktiengesellschaft, Daimler North America Corporation, Dr. Ing.
h.c. F. Porsche AG, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.,
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Porsche Cars of
North America, Inc., Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. answering brief is due on March 8, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants AUDUBON IMPORTS, LLC, DBA Mercedes Benz of
Baton Rouge; AUTOHAUS ACQUISITION, INC.; ESTATE MOTORS, INC.;
POWDERS AUTOMOBILES, INC., FKA Powders Volkswagen Audi, Inc.,, FKA
Powders Volkswagen, Inc.; TEAM IMPORTS, LLC, DBA Team Audi and Team
VW; TOM SCHMIDT; WYOMING VALLEY MOTORS, INC., DBA Wyoming Valley
BMW; and BRONSBERG & HUGHES PONTIAC, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Porsche Wyoming
Valley, is represented by:
Ian Barlow, Esq.
William A. Kershaw, Esq.
KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 448-9800
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
- and -
Isaac Diel, Esq.
SHARP MCQUEEN, P.A.
6900 College Boulevard
Overland Park, KS 66211
Telephone: (913) 661-9931
E-mail: idiel@midwest-law.com
- and -
Qianwei Fu, Esq.
Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Esq.
Judith Zahid, Esq.
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
44 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
E-mail: qfu@zelle.com
cmicheletti@zelle.com
jzahid@zelle.com
- and -
Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 899-4100
E-mail: jhackett@zelle.com
Defendants-Appellees BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
(BMW AG); BMW(US) HOLDING CORP.; BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC;
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (Audi AG); AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; DR. ING. H.C.
F. PORSCHE AG; PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.; DAIMLER
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (Daimler AG); DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION; MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.; MERCEDES-BENZ
VANS, LLC; MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; and VOLKSWAGEN AG are
represented by:
Alicia R. Jovais, Esq.
Belinda S. Lee, Esq.
Daniel Murray Wall, Esq.
Elizabeth Hays Yandell, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
E-mail: alicia.jovais@lw.com
belinda.lee@lw.com
dan.wall@lw.com
elizabeth.yandell@lw.com
- and -
Michael Lacovara, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4834
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
E-mail: michael.lacovara@lw.com
- and -
Amanda F. Davidoff, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1700 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 956-7500
E-mail: davidoffa@sullcrom.com
- and -
Suhana Han, Esq.
Sharon Nelles, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
E-mail: hans@sullcrom.com
nelless@sullcrom.com
- and -
Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 954-0200
E-mail: eric.knapp@squirepb.com
troy.yoshino@squirepb.com
- and -
Shon Morgan, Esq.
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
MDL 2878: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: RANBAXY GENERIC DRUG APPLICATION
ANTITRUST, Case No. 1:19-md-02878-NMG (D. Mass.), the Direct
Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution,
Inc. (DPPs) ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"all persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Diovan and/or AB-rated generic
versions of Diovan directly from any of the Defendants or
any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the
period September 21, 2012, through and until the
anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease
(the "Diovan Class Period");
"all persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Valcyte and/or AB-rated generic
versions of Valcyte directly from any of the Defendants or
any brand or generic manufacturer, but excluding those
purchasers who only purchased branded Valcyte, at any time
during the period August 1, 2014, through and until the
anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease
(the "Valcyte Class Period"); and
"all persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Nexium and/or AB-rated generic
versions of Nexium directly from any of the Defendants or
any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the
period May 27, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive
effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the "Nexium
Class Period").
Excluded from each of the direct purchaser classes are the
defendants and their officers, directors, management,
employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and all
governmental entities.;
2. appointing Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.
as the representatives of each Class; and
3. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Hilliard
& Shadowen LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for each Class.
A copy of the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/2IoOgH3 at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc.,
and the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class, are:
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
grega@hbsslaw.com
kristiel@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (855) 344-3928
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
John D. Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM
34 Sunset Boulevard
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
John Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
jvanek@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
mslater@sperling-law.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
tziegler@ktmc.com
ebarlieb@ktmc.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Tyler Story, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
tjs@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
Donna M. Evans, Esq.
Royce Zeisler, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
devans@cohenmilstein.com
rzeisler@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
MDL 2977: Haff Poultry Seeks to Transfer and Consolidate 4 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch,
Jonathan Walters, Myles B. Weaver, and Melissa Weaver, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, in the case IN RE:
BROILER CHICKEN GROWER LITIGATION, Case No. 6:17-CV-00033 (E.D.
Okla.) filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation for an Order to consolidate four actions against Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., and transfer them to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma under MDL No.
2977.
The Plaintiffs move the Panel to transfer and consolidate pretrial
proceedings for these actions:
-- In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No.
6:17-CV-00033 (E.D. Okla.) (Hon. Robert J. Shelby);
-- In re Sanderson and Koch Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation,
Case No. 7:18-CV-00031 (E.D.N.C.) (Hon. James C. Dever, III);
-- McEntire, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-CV-02764 (D. Colo.) (Hon. Nina Y. Wang); and
-- Colvin v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-02464
(D. Kan.) (Hon. Holly L. Teeter).
The Plaintiffs assert that the claims and proposed classes in the
four actions are identical in all substantive aspects. All of the
actions bring identical claims on behalf of farmers who raise
broiler chickens under contracts with Integrators, the entities
that control nearly every aspect of broiler production. All of the
actions arise out of the same conduct—agreements between
Integrators not to compete for Broiler Grow-Out Services, with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, or stabilizing Grower
compensation below competitive levels. All of the actions allege
that this conspiracy is in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, as well as unfair practices under Section 202 of the
Packers and Stockyards Act.
Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
Christina M. Black, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
cblack@bm.net
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
E-mail: dwalker@bm.net
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
Samantha S. Derksen, Esq.
HAUSFELD & CO. LLP
12 Gough Square London, EC4A 3DW
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7665-5000
E-mail: sderksen@hausfeld.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Fetsick, Esq.
HAUSFELD, LLP
33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: kfetsick@hausfeld.com
- and -
Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST, LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
- and -
Gregory Davis, Esq.
DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
7031 Halcyon Park Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
Telephone: (334) 832-9080
Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
E-mail: gldavis@knology.net
- and -
Charles D. Gabriel, Esq.
CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC
North Fulton Satellite Office
5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 96
Alpharetta, GA 30097
Telephone: (678) 735-5903
Facsimile: (678) 735-5905
E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com
- and -
Harlan Hentges, Esq.
HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
102 East Thatcher Street
Edmond, OK 73034
Telephone: (405) 340-6554
Facsimile: (405) 340-6562
E-mail: harlan@organiclawyers.com
- and -
John C. Whitfield, Esq.
Caroline Taylor, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
19 North Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 821-0656
E-mail: john@wbmllp.com
caroline@wbmllp.com
- and -
Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 305
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: jennifer@wbmllp.com
- and -
J. Dudley Butler, Esq.
BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
499-A Breakwater Drive
Benton, MS 39039
Telephone: (662) 673-0091
Facsimile: (662) 673-0091
E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com
- and -
Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202)789-3960
Facsimile: (202)789-1813
E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com
- and -
David S. Muraskin, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC
1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-5245
Facsimile: (202) 232-7203
E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net
- and -
Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC
202 West Broadway Avenue
Enid, OK 73701
Telephone: (580) 234-5144
Facsimile: (580) 234-8890
E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com
rle@mdpllc.com
- and -
M. David Riggs, Esq.
Donald M. Bingham, Esq.
Kristopher Koepsel, Esq.
RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS
502 West Sixth Street
Tulsa, OK 74119
Telephone: (918) 699-8914
Facsimile: (918) 587-9708
E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com
don_bingham@riggsabney.com
kkoepsel@riggsabney.com
- and -
William A. Edmondson, Esq.
RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS
528 N.W. 12th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (405) 843-9909
Facsimile: (405) 842-2913
E-mail: dedmondson@riggsabney.com
- and -
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
- and -
Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP
2440 West El Camino Real Suite 100
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: (650) 784-4040
Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com
- and -
M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C.
55 North Section Street P.O. Box 161
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 929-0900
Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
E-mail: dampier.steve@gmail.com
MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Collins Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY COLLINS and MARC LOMBARD, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. MERRIMACK MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 20-2393 (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from
the Defendant's unfair and deceptive conduct in the sale of
homeowners insurance policies in violation of the Massachusetts
General Laws.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in unfair and/or
deceptive acts and practices through one or more of the following
acts and omissions: (i) failing and refusing to permit the
Plaintiffs to purchase Coverage A limits based on "full replacement
cost of the building immediately before the loss;" (ii) requiring
the Plaintiffs to purchase Coverage A limits that the Plaintiffs
did not want and that Plaintiffs were not required to purchase in
order to be eligible for unreduced replacement cost benefits; (iii)
charging the Plaintiffs premiums for based on property valuations
that included "debris removal" even though such coverage was part
of the basic policy; and (iv) charging the Plaintiffs premiums for
"ordinance/law compliance" even though such coverage was part of
the basic policy. All of the Defendant's misconduct was motivated
by, and resulted in, the generation of higher revenues for the
Defendant at the expense of the Plaintiffs and Class members.
The Plaintiffs suffered harm due to the Defendant's unlawful
conduct by being deprived of coverage options available under the
Defendant's policies and by being charged and paying for insurance
coverage that they did not want and/or that was duplicative of
existing coverage, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs have owned, as trustees of the Mary Collins and Marc
Anthony Lombard Revocable Trust, the single-family home located in
Greenfield, Massachusetts, where they have lived since 1994.
Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company is a corporation engaged in
the business of insurance, with a principal place of business in
Andover, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch Street
Framingham, MA 01701
Telephone: (508) 872-1261
E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
273 State Street
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 455-1730
E-mail: jmomeau@emolawyers.com
MEXGROCER.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MEXGROCER.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08809 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and
operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that on multiple occasions, the last
occurring in October 2020, she visited the Defendant's Website,
www.mexgrocer.com, to make a purchase. Despite her efforts,
however, she was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred her from
being able to determine what specific products were offered for
sale.
Ms. Angeles contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination, thus seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies and procedures
so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Mexgrocer.com, LLC is a Mexican grocery store company that owns and
operates the Website.[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
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cabrales Appeals N.D. Tex. Ruling to 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juan Cabrales filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled JUAN CABRALES, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-1703, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14,
2020, the lawsuit seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The appellate case is captioned as Juan Cabrales v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 20-11050, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Cabrales, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
13601 Preston Road
Dallas, TX 75240-0000
Telephone: (214) 494-1871
E-mail: shawn@jaffer.law
Defendant-Appellee Midland Credit Management, Incorporated is
represented by:
Gregg D. Stevens, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, P.L.L.C.
6688 N. Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 445-2406
E-mail: gstevens@mcglinchey.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ortiz Consumer Credit Suit Removed to W.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Eric Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
2020CV04348, 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 12, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-01205-FB to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Maurice Clanton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C.
926 Chulie Dr
San Antonio, TX 78216
Telephone: (210) 226-0800
Facsimile: (210) 338-8660
E-mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 789-7576
Facsimile: (305) 789-7799
E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com
MISTER BEE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MISTER BEE POTATO CHIP COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-08666-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its Web site
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he recently visited the Defendant's Web
site, www.misterbee.com, in October of 2020 to browse and
potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, he was
denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual
due to the Web site's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to
enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination, thus he seeks a 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 consumers.
Mister Bee Potato Chip Company is a potato chip manufacturing
company that owns and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MIZUHO BANK: Laydon Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated August 27, 2020, and Judgment dated September 25, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BANK OF
TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE SUMITOMO TRUST AND BANKING CO.,
LTD., THE NORINCHUKIN BANK, MITSUBISHI UFJ TRUST AND BANKING
CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION, J.P. MORGAN CHASE
& CO., J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES PLC, MIZUHO CORPORATE BANK, LTD., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE
SHOKO CHUKIN BANK, LTD., SHINKIN CENTRAL BANK, UBS AG, UBS
SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD., THE BANK OF YOKOHAMA, LTD., SOCIETE
GENERALE SA, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK
OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS SECURITIES JAPAN LIMITED, BARCLAYS BANK PLC,
CITIBANK, NA, CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK, JAPAN LTD., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS JAPAN, INC., COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE
RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC,
LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED, R.P. MARTIN HOLDINGS
LIMITED, MARTIN BROKERS (UK) LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, AND JOHN DOE
NOS. 1-50, Case No. 12-cv-03419 (GBD), in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The case involves the Defendants' alleged manipulation of Euroyen
Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (TIBOR), Yen London Interbank Offered
Rate for Japanese Yen (LIBOR), and the prices of Euroyen TIBOR
futures contracts from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010. The
Plaintiff brings this action to recover for losses that he
allegedly suffered when he initiated short positions in Euroyen
TIBOR futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange during
the Class period, claiming that the Defendants' manipulation of Yen
LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR affected the prices of his Euroyen TIBOR
futures contracts. Specifically, according to the Plaintiff, the
Defendants made artificial Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions
to the British Bankers' Association in London and the Japanese
Bankers' Association in Tokyo in order to profit from derivatives
involving Japanese Yen. The Defendants argue that the alleged
conduct at issue is so predominantly foreign as to render the
Plaintiff's claims impermissibly extraterritorial.
The appeal is filed on October 16, 2020 following the District
Court's Judgment to dismiss the Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint, and all other orders entered in the case that were
adverse, either in whole or in part, to Plaintiff.
The appellate case is captioned as Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.,
Case No. 20-3626, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
ghorn@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
- and -
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
Carl Hammarskjold, Esq.
Colleen Cleary, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
ccleary@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
Facsimile: (646) 398-8392
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9102
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
MODELL'S SPORTING: Faces Kretschman Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action and adversary proceeding has been filed against
Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc. The case is styled as ERNST
KRETSCHMAN and CATHERINE NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; and Catherine Nunez v. Modell's Sporting
Goods, Inc., Case No. 20-01584-VFP (Bankr. D.N.J., October 30,
2020).
The lawsuit seeks recovery of money/property.
The case is assigned to Judge Vincent F. Papalia.
Modell's Sporting Goods was an American sporting goods retailer
with locations in the Northeastern United States. Modell's carried
both sporting goods and related apparel. Modell's had more than 150
retail locations in ten states and the District of Columbia in
2018.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gail C. Lin, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Ave, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
MODERN FACILITIES: Padilla Alleges Unlawful Wage Pay for Janitors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MODERN FACILITIES SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-05038 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's
unlawful labor practices in violations of the New York Labor Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employed in the State of New York
"on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the
end of the week in which the wages are earned"; failed to pay
overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; failed to
provide upon hire written notice of rate of pay and other
information; and failed to provide with an accurate statement each
pay period indicating the number of overtime hours worked, overtime
rate of pay and other information.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
janitorial worker from in or about 2017 until on or about September
30, 2020.
Modern Facilities Services, Inc. provides janitorial services to
clients throughout the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NICO CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. MOHAWK
INDUSTRIES, INC., an unknown business entity; DALTILE SERVICES,
INC., an unknown business entity; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC., an
unknown business entity; DAL-TILE CORPORATION, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG02675,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on October 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01510-NONE-EPG to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures, sources,
distributes, and markets flooring for residential and commercial
applications.
DAL-Tile Services, Inc. provides building products and materials.
The Company distributes stone, cement, lime, construction sand,
gravel, and other construction materials.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jesse M. Jauregui, Esq.
Ian A. Wright, Esq.
Kelsey K. Wong, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
E-mail: jesse.jauregui@alston.com
ian.wright@alston.com
kelsey.wong@alston.com
MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Beverage Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
before a Colorado trial court remains pending.
On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the "Defendants")
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
and in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a
substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.
On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities
class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was
transferred to the Colorado District Court, and subsequently was
voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019.
On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in
Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated case.
On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint
alleging that the Defendants made false statements and material
omissions to the market beginning in February 2017 and ending in
February 2019, which, it alleges, misled the market as to the
strength of our financial condition and internal control processes
related to financial accounting.
The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the
Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial
results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax
benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to
inflate the price of the company's common stock.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 23, 2020; the plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to
our motion to dismiss on March 9, 2020; and the company filed its
reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on April 8, 2020.
Oral argument on the motion occurred on October 28, 2020.
Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A
range of potential loss is not estimable at this time."
Molson Coors Beverage Company is a multinational brewing company,
formed in 2005 by the merger of Molson of Canada, and Coors of the
United States. At December 31, 2019, the Company's reporting
segments included: MillerCoors LLC ("MillerCoors" or U.S. segment),
operating in the United States; Molson Coors Canada ("MCC" or
Canada segment), operating in Canada; Molson Coors Europe (Europe
segment), operating in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary,
Montenegro, the Republic of Ireland, Romania, Serbia, the United
Kingdom and various other European countries; and Molson Coors
International ("MCI" or International segment), operating in
various other countries.
MRS BPO: Macaraeg Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jessica Macaraeg, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jessica Macaraeg, Karen
Sanders, Jacquelyn S. Harrell, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. MRS BPO, LLC doing
business as: MRS Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03209, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10,
2020, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Macaraeg, et al. v. MRS
BPO, LLC, Case No. 20-3066, in the US Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript information sheet was due by November 5, 2020;
and
-- Appellants' brief is due on or before December 1, 2020 for
Jacquelyn S. Harrell, Jessica Macaraeg and Karen Sanders.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JESSICA MACARAEG, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals; KAREN SANDERS,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals; and JACQUELYN S. HARRELL, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, are represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 581-5456
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee MRS BPO, LLC, doing business as MRS ASSOCIATES,
INC., is represented by:
Bradley Richard Armstrong, Esq.
MOSS & BARNETT, PA
150 S. Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 877-5359
E-mail: Bradley.Armstrong@lawmoss.com
NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Webster Suit in Connecticut Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Auto Loans,
LLC. The case is captioned as ALICIA WEBSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NATIONAL AUTO
LOANS, LLC, Case No. HHD-CV-20-6133473-S (Conn. Super., Hartford
Cty., Oct. 5, 2020).
National Auto Loans, LLC is a loan agency based in Waterbury,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC
35 Cold Spring Road Suite 512
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Telephone: (860) 571-0408
NOBILIS HEALTH: Yang Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Zhang Yang filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
his lawsuit entitled ZHANG YANG, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. NOBILIS HEALTH CORP., HARRY FLEMING,
DAVID YOUNG, KENNETH J. KLEIN, Case No. 4:19-cv-00145-ASH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Nobilis securities between May 8, 2018 and
November 15, 2018, both dates inclusive. According to the
complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company overstated its accounts receivables and revenue; (2)
consequently, the Company would be required to delay the filing of
its quarterly report on Form 10-Q; (3) such a delay would result in
the Company falling in non-compliance with the New York Stock
Exchange listing requirements; and (4) that, as a result the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
The appellate case is captioned as Zhang Yang v. Nobilis Health
Corp., et al., Case No. 20-20538, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Zhang Yang, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Omar Jafri, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
ojafri@pomlaw.com
- and -
Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING PC
1221 McKinney, Suite 2500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 655-1101
Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
E-mail: sford@azalaw.com
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Marshall Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Clifton W. Marshall, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CLIFTON W. MARSHALL,
THOMAS W. HALL, MARIA E. MIDKIFF, MANUEL A. GONZALEZ, RICKY L.
HENDRICKSON, PHILLIP B. BROOKS, AND HAROLD HYLTON, individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons on
behalf of the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE, DENISE PEPPARD, IAN ZISKIN, MICHAEL HARDESTY, KENNETH L.
BEDINGFIELD, KENNETH N. HEINTZ, TALHA A. ZOBAIR, PRABU NATARAJAN,
DANIEL HICKEY, MARIA T. NORMAN, STEPHEN C. MOVIUS, MARK A. CAYLOR,
MARK RABINOWITZ, SILVA THOMAS, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-06794-AB-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court certified a class of:
All persons, excluding defendants and/or other individuals
who are liable for the conduct described in the complaint,
who are or were participants or beneficiaries of the
Northrop Grumman Savings Plan at any time between
September 9, 2010 and the date of judgment, and were
affected by the conduct set forth in this complaint.
On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Northrop
Grumman Corporation, the Northrop Grumman Corporation Savings Plan
Administrative Committee, the Northrop Grumman Corporation Savings
Plan Investment Committee, and certain officers and employees of
Northrop, and Plan fiduciaries.
On January 20, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court allowed Plaintiffs leave
to amend the putative class period to comport with the statute of
limitations, allegations involving Financial Engines and the
Emerging Markets Equity Fund in order to establish standing, and
allegations regarding the extent of Northrop's role as a
fiduciary.
The appellate case is captioned as CLIFTON W. MARSHALL; THOMAS W.
HALL; MANUEL A. GONZALEZ; RICKY L. HENDRICKSON; PHILLIP B. BROOKS;
HAROLD HYLTON, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons on behalf of the Northrop Grummna
Savings Plan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ALAN CARLSON; PETER DELUCA;
ROBERT STOLTE, Objectors-Appellees, and MARIA E. MIDKIFF,
Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDLANDER; JOHN MURRAY, Objectors, v. NORTHROP
GRUMMAN CORPORATION; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE;
DENISE PEPPARD; IAN ZISKIN; MICHAEL HARDESTY; KENNETH L.
BEDINGFIELD; KENNETH N. HEINTZ; TALHA A. ZOBAIR; PRABU NATARAJAN;
DANIEL HICKEY; MARIA T. NORMAN; STEPHEN C. MOVIUS; MARK A. CAYLOR;
MARK RABINOWITZ; SILVA THOMAS; JOHN DOES, 1-10; RICHARD BOAK;
DEBORA CATSAVAS; TERI HERZOG; TIFFANY MCCONNELL KING; CHRISTOPHER
MCGEE; GARY MCKENZIE; CONSTANCE SOLOWAY; RAJENDER CHANDHOK; GLORIA
FLACH; JAMES M. MYERS; SUNIL NAVALE; ERIC SCHOLTEN; STEVEN SPIEGEL,
Defendants, Case No. 20-56096, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 27,
2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 18, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter on December 18,
2020;
-- Appellant's opening brief is due on January 27, 2021;
-- Appellee's answering brief is due on February 26, 2021; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief.[BN]
NOVA CASUALTY: LF Personal Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
LF PERSONAL TRAINING, INC., an Illinois Corporation v. NOVA
CASUALTY COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-05930
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2020) arises from the Defendant's denial of
business interruption insurance coverage to the Plaintiff and all
those similarly situated for losses caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.
The Plaintiff purchased a business owner's policy for commercial
property from the Defendant to protect its business from risk. The
policy contract was authored and issued by the Defendant and
contains numerous promises to pay Plaintiff -- also known as
"coverages" -- for a broad range of losses that the Plaintiff might
suffer including business interruption.
According to the complaint, despite the fact that the Defendant has
accepted the Plaintiff's insurance premium payments, the Defendant
has summarily denied the Plaintiff's claims for coverage arising
from government-ordered interruption and closure of its business
due to COVID-19, in breach of the Defendant's contractual
obligations under the policy. The Defendant denied Plaintiff's
claims without even formal correspondence but rather an informal
email sent from its agent.
The Plaintiff also asserts nationwide class action claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is a small business who owns and operates a fitness
studio in Lake Forest, Illinois offering personal training and
other physical fitness services.
NOVA Casualty Company is a New York insurance company which
specializes in both commercial and personal lines of
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William E. Meyer, Jr., Esq.
Lucas M. Fuksa, Esq.
Lema A. Khorshid, Esq.
Vincent P. Formica, Esq.
200 W. Superior, Suite 410
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 266-2221
Facsimile: (312) 266-2224
E-mail: william@fklawfirm.com
lucas@fklawfirm.com
lema@fklawfirm.com
vince@fklawfirm.com
NOVO FITNESS: Fails to Pay OT to Fitness Studio Staff, Mixon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY MIXON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO FITNESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00269-CDL (M.D. Ga., October 29, 2020) brings this
complaint against the Defendant for its alleged willful and
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay its employees' appropriate wages and overtime compensation
earned.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in July 2019 as an
assistant studio manager performing non-exempt non-managerial tasks
and manual labor tasks, and then she was promoted to operations
manager in October 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that she was
misclassified by the Defendant as exempt of overtime pay.
According to the complaint, the Defendant employs a uniform policy
and/or practice of consistently requiring the non-exempt employees
to remain available at all hours and to perform duties without
receiving compensation. Specifically, they were required to attend
meetings but were not included in the number of hours regularly
worked, in which the Defendant benefitted from because it lessened
its personnel costs and increased its profits.
Novo Fitness, Inc. owns and operates a fitness studio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis C. Hargrove, Esq.
Abigail W. Miller, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
200 13th Street
Columbus, GA 31901
Tel: (706) 322-6226
Fax: (706) 322-6221
E-mail: thargrove@thefinleyfirm.com
amiller@thefinleyfirm.com
OFFICE DEPOT: Moran Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Leather Chairs
------------------------------------------------------------------
GENE MORAN, and others similarly situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-02043-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) arises
from the Defendant's unfair, illegal and fraudulent business
practices in violation of the California Business and Professions
Code.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant's business practices in
selling leather chairs is unfair as it violates public policy,
injuring the Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers
substantially, by selling bogus leather chairs as being actual
leather. There is no countervailing benefit to the Plaintiff and
the Class members in buying the bogus leather chairs, and they
could not avoid the injury since they had no knowledge of the true
composition of the chairs and the percentages of non-leather
material because it was never disclosed.
Office Depot, Inc. is an American office supply retailing company
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Okorie Okorocha, Esq.
THE OKOROCHA FIRM
117 E Colorado Blvd., Ste 465
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 497-0321
E-mail: Toxlawyer@gmail.com
OLD LYME: Wong Files Fraud Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Lyme Gourmet
Company. The case is captioned as Darren Wong, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Old Lyme Gourmet Company,
d/b/a Deep River Snacks, Case No. 3:20-cv-07095-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
October 12, 2020).
The lawsuit arises from fraud-related issues.
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. An
initial case management conference is set for January 15, 2021.
Old Lyme Gourmet Company was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Moon Appeals Ruling in ADA Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mark Moon, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Mark Moon, et al. v. County of
Orange, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00258-JVS-DFM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.
The lawsuit alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
The appellate case is captioned as Mark Moon, et al. v. County of
Orange, et al., Case No. 20-56076, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Stephen Bartol, Walter Cole, Julio Dorantes, Gary
Figueroa, Johnny Martinez, Ronald McGregor, Mark Moon, Robert Ruiz
and Jonathan Tieu Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 23,
2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 14, 2020;
-- Appellants Stephen Bartol, Walter Cole, Julio Dorantes, Gary
Figueroa, Johnny Martinez, Ronald McGregor, Mark Moon, Robert Ruiz
and Jonathan Tieu opening brief is due on January 25, 2021;
-- Appellees County of Orange, Does and GTL answering brief is
due on February 24, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MARK MOON, ROBERT RUIZ, GARY FIGUEROA,
JONATHAN TIEU, JOHNNY MARTINEZ, JULIO DORANTES, WALTER COLE, RONALD
MCGREGOR, and STEPHEN BARTOL, and others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Richard Paul Herman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD P. HERMAN
P. O. Box 53114
Irvine, CA 92619-3114
Telephone: (714) 547-8512
E-mail: rherman@richardphermanlaw.com
- and -
Jerry Lawrence Steering, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JERRY L. STEERING
4063 Birch Street Suite # 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
E-mail: jerrysteering@yahoo.com
Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF ORANGE, a Governmental Entity, and
GTL, A Corporation, AKA GTL Holdings, Inc., are represented by:
Donald Kevin Dunn, Esq.
ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
333 W. Santa Ana Boulevard P.O. Box 1370
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Telephone: (714) 834-3300
E-mail: kevin.dunn@coco.ocgov.com
- and -
Zachary M. Schwartz, Esq.
KOELLER, NEBEKER, CARLSON & HALUCK LLP
3 Park Plaza
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 864-3400
E-mail: zachary.schwartz@knchlaw.com
- and -
Gregory Alan Nylen, Esq.
LOBB & CLIFF, LLP
1650 Spruce Street
Riverside, CA 92507
Telephone: (951) 788-9410
OVERSTOCK.COM: Mangrove Partners Appeals Ruling to 10th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. filed an appeal
from the District Court's Memorandum Decision and Order, dated
September 28, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Mangrove
Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Overstock.com, Case No.
2:19-cv-709-DAK-DAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dale A.
Kimball of the United States District Court for the District of
Utah granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class
action asserting violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against an online
home goods retailer (the "Company") and certain of its current and
former officers. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v.
Overstock.com, No. 2:19-CV-709-DAK-DAO (D. Utah Sept. 28, 2020).
Plaintiff, a short seller, alleged that the Company (i) manipulated
the market by issuing a digital dividend through the Company's
newly developed alternative trading platform and triggering a
"short squeeze," and (ii) misrepresented the purpose of the digital
dividend by not disclosing it would result in a short squeeze and
the Company's financial condition by adjusting its earnings
guidance upwards. The Court dismissed the claims because they were
based on "speculation and fraud-by-hindsight."
The Company developed blockchain technology to create an
alternative trading platform for investors to trade digital
securities as part of its plans to transition from an online
retailer to a blockchain technology business. In July 2019, the
Company announced it would issue dividends for its common and
preferred stock in digital tokens to promote its alternative
trading platform. The Company also explained that the digital
tokens would not be (and were not required to be) registered and
that, under federal securities laws, they could not be traded for
approximately six months after their issuance. During that same
time period, the Company revised its earnings guidance upward based
on increased customer retention for its retail business. Shortly
after the digital dividends announcement, the Company's CEO
resigned when his relationship with a Russian spy became public.
Approximately one month later, the Company adjusted its earnings
guidance downward and the former CEO sold over 4.7 million Company
shares for $90 million.
Plaintiff, who was a short seller, claimed that the Company
misrepresented (i) its financial condition by revising its earnings
guidance upward, and (ii) its purpose for issuing digital dividends
as business driven when the real objective was to increase the
stock price around the time of the CEO's anticipated departure.
Plaintiff also claimed that the Company manipulated the market by
causing an artificial short squeeze and an increase in share price
through its digital dividends. Short sellers, who borrow stock from
a brokerage, sell the borrowed stock at a time when they believe
the market price for the stock is high and purchase them back when
they believe the stock price is low, returning the newly purchased
stock to the brokerage. If a dividend is issued on a stock that a
short seller has borrowed, the short seller is obligated to pay the
dividend to the lender. The digital dividend and the six-month
lock-up period thus would force short sellers to cover their
positions at an inflated price.
The Court rejected these claims. The Court first held that earnings
guidance is "the quintessential example of a forward-looking
statement protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor" and that
plaintiff's reliance on the missed guidance was a "classic attempt
to plead fraud by hindsight." The Court also held that the
Company's downward revision of its earnings guidance after the CEO
left the Company did not demonstrate that prior guidance was false
but only that a different management team took a different
approach. The Court also held that there was nothing misleading
about the Company's statements on the digital dividend. The Company
stated a legitimate business purpose -- i.e., facilitating the
Company's transition from an online retailer to a blockchain
company -- and plaintiff had failed to allege any facts for their
contention that the purpose of the digital dividend was to target
short sellers. Additionally, the nature and the terms of the
digital dividend were clearly disclosed such that its impact was
clearly understood, and "[t]here is no duty to disclose something
so obvious that the entire market immediately understands it."
Based on the district court's September 28, 2020 Memorandum
Decision and Order dismissing Plaintiff's Consolidated Complaint
against all Defendants, Plaintiff's action is dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned as Mangrove Partners Master Fund,
Ltd. v. Overstock.com, Case No. 20-4115, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. is
represented by:
Keith M. Woodwell, Esq.
Joseph D. Watkins, Esq.
CLYDE, SNOW & SESSIONS, P.C.
201 South Main Street, Suite 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-2516
Facsimile: (801) 521-6280
E-mail: kmw@clydesnow.com
jdw@clydesnow.com
- and -
Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
Laura H. Posner, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
lposner@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
Molly J. Bowen, Esq.
Joshua Handelsman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com
mbowen@cohenmilstein.com
jhandelsman@cohenmilstein.com
PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Flo & Eddie Copyright Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pandora Media, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media,
LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07648-PSG-GJS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Flo & Eddie
Inc. filed a class action suit on October 2, 2014 against Pandora
Media, LLC, the successor to Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora) in the
federal district court for the Central District of California.
The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section
980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in
connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972 (which the company refer to as,
"pre-1972 recordings").
On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation statute, which following denial of Pandora's
motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.
In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to ... settle an
important question of law."
The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims
asserted in the lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail
itself of this preemption defense, including making the required
payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972
recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA
(along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit
to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media,
Inc. case.
On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the
MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's
performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered
factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.
After Flo & Eddie filed its action in 2014 against Pandora, several
other plaintiffs commenced separate actions, both on an individual
and class action basis, alleging a variety of violations of common
law and state copyright and other statutes arising from allegations
that Pandora owed royalties for the public performance of pre-1972
recordings. Many of these separate actions have been dismissed or
are in the process of being dismissed. Sirius XM Holdings believes
that none of the remaining pending actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on Pandora's business, financial condition
or results of operations.
The appellate case is captioned as Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora
Media, LLC, Case No. 20-56134, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Pandora Media, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due
on November 4, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 27, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 28, 2020;
-- Appellant Pandora Media, LLC opening brief is due on February
4, 2021;
-- Appellee Flo & Eddie, Inc. answering brief is due on March 8,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Evan Seth Cohen, Esq.
COHEN AND COHEN
8340 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90069-5420
- and -
Henry D. Gradstein, Esq.
KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-8989
- and -
Maryann Rose Marzano, Esq.
GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.
6310 San Vicente Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 302-9488
E-mail: mmarzano@gradstein.com
- and -
Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 373-7380
E-mail: smorrissey@SusmanGodfrey.com
- and -
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4405
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: RNath@susmangodfrey.com
Defendant-Appellant PANDORA MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:
Jessica Stebbins Bina, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 653-5500
E-mail: jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com
- and -
Andrew Michael Gass, Esq.
Joseph Wetzel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
E-mail: andrew.gass@lw.com
joe.wetzel@lw.com
- and -
Carolyn M. Homer, Esq.
Elana Nightingale Dawson, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
E-mail: carolyn.homer@lw.com
elana.nightingaledawson@lw.com
PHOENIX LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PHOENIX LEATHER GOODS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09086
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to
design, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the
Website, www.beltoutlet.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied him the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Phoenix Leather Goods LLC is a clothing accessories company, and
owns and operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid for Lead Plaintiff in UFCW Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motions for
lead plaintiff in the putative class action suit initiated by
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A
("UFCW"), is pending.
On July 6, 2020, United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union Local 464A ("UFCW"), acting on behalf of itself and a
putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC stock between
February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, filed a class action complaint
in the Colorado Court against PPC, and Messrs. William W. Lovette,
Jayson J. Penn, and Fabio Sandri.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's
(PPC's) public statements regarding its business and the drivers
behind its financial results were false and misleading due to the
defendants' purported failure to disclose its participation in an
antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler litigation and the
Indictment (defined below).
On September 4, 2020, UFCW and the New Mexico State Investment
Council filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff
under the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act.
A decision on the lead plaintiff motions is currently pending.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Plant Workers Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class action
suit initiated by plant workers has been granted.
Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "Maryland Court") against the company
(PPC) and a number of other chicken producers, as well as WMS
(Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing
plant production and maintenance workers ("Plant Workers"). They
allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the
compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act
and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present.
On November 12, 2019, the Maryland Court ordered the consolidation
of the four cases for pretrial purposes.
The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter,
the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the Maryland Court that
they would be amending their complaint, which they did on December
20, 2019.
The consolidated amended complaint asserts largely similar
allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated complaint, but was
extended to include more class members and turkey processors as
well as chicken processors.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on March 2, 2020, with oppositions originally due on
April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21, 2020.
The Maryland Court has issued a series of Standing Orders related
to the exigent circumstances created by COVID-19, which extended
filing deadlines by 84 days, including the deadlines for the
response briefings related to defendants' motions to dismiss.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss, and on September 16, 2020,
the Maryland Court granted the motion without prejudice.
The Maryland Court did allow, however, the plaintiffs to amend
their Complaint, which they are expected to do.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Facing New Mexico Attorney General Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing a suit entitled, State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector Balderas
v. Koch Foods, et al., No. D-101-CV-2020-0891.
On September 1, 2020, the Attorney General of New Mexico filed a
complaint raising similar allegations as the class action and
direct action complaints before the Illinois Court ( In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 ).
The case is styled as State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector Balderas
v. Koch Foods, et al., No. D-101-CV-2020-0891 and is pending before
the First Judicial District Court in the County of Santa Fe.
The company (PPC) has not been served with the complaint.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Grower Litig. Underway in Okla., Colo. and Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits in Oklahoma,
Colorado and Kansas, relating to Grower Litigation.
On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against the company (PPC) and four
other producers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce
competition for grower services and depress the price paid to
growers.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The
complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated
amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").
The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017 for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Oklahoma Court granted only certain other
defendants' motions challenging jurisdiction.
In addition, on March 12, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (the "Bankruptcy
Court") enjoined the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs from litigating the
Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC because allegations
in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order
relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009.
Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any
claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28,
2009.
On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and lifted the
stay on discovery.
On February 21, 2020, the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint in light of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. On
April 13, 2020, the Oklahoma Court entered a case management order
setting a September 24, 2021 deadline for the close of fact
discovery.
In September 2020, similar class action complaints were filed in
the Colorado Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (the "Kansas Court") alleging claims that mirror those
before the Oklahoma Court.
On October 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs filed a motion
with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"JPML") seeking consolidation of the various cases, including any
tag-along cases, and transfer of them to the Oklahoma Court.
On October 8, 2020, another similar class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Defendants, on October 13, 2020, in the Kansas Court case and, on
October 14, 2020, in the Colorado Court case, filed motions seeking
dismissal of those complaints under the first-to-file rule. The
motions before the JPML, Colorado Court, and Kansas Court are
pending. Discovery in the Oklahoma Court case is ongoing.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Oct. 2022 Trial in Illinois Broiler Chicken Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Illinois Court
has set a trial date of October 17, 2022 in the purported federal
class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637.
Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Illinois Court") against the company (PPC) and 13 other
producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
and unfair competition laws.
The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.
The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers.
Between December 8, 2017 and October 14, 2020, 44 individual direct
action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual
direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints, with four complaints including additional allegations
of fixing prices and rigging bids on small birds sold to quick
service restaurants.
On August 26, 2020, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, one of the
plaintiffs, filed a notice dismissing its case.
On September 22, 2020, the Illinois Court required direct action
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by October 23, 2020 and
stayed bid-rigging claims until the resolution of plaintiffs’
supply reduction and other conspiracy claims are resolved.
The Illinois Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling
of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any
necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will
be consolidated.
On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") filed
a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following
a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Illinois Court
granted the government's motion to intervene, ordering a limited
stay, which was subsequently reset, until March 31, 2020. The stay
was lifted on March 31, 2020.
On August 28, 2020, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling
order through trial, which contemplates class certification
briefing and related expert reports proceeding from October 30,
2020 to May 6, 2021, the close of all merits fact discovery on June
11, 2021, and summary judgment briefing and related expert reports
proceeding from July 2, 2021 to February 22, 2022.
The Illinois Court has set a trial date of October 17, 2022.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PIONEER CREDIT: Tavernaro Appeals Order in FDCPA Suit to 10th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jason Tavernaro filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order and corresponding Judgment, dated September
25, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled JASON TAVERNARO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-02141-KHV-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.
The Plaintiff brings suit against Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. for
alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et. seq. The Plaintiff alleges
that defendant - a debt collector - violated the FDCPA when it sent
his employer a wage withholding order in the name of a creditor.
The Plaintiff endeavors to represent a class of similarly situated
persons. The case is before the Court on the Motion To Dismiss By
Defendant Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. filed June 19, 2020. The
Court sustains defendant's motion.
The appellate case is captioned as Tavernaro v. Pioneer Credit
Recovery, Inc., Case No. 20-3219, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Tavernaro is represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
E-mail: roberts@butschroberts.com
- and -
Mark D. Molner, Esq.
Molner Law Group, LLC
E. 39th Street, Suite 1G
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 281-8549
Facsimile: (816) 817-1473
E-mail: Mark@MolnerLaw.com
PRIMAL NUTRITION: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08659
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to
design, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff recently visited the
Defendant's Web site, www.primalkitchen.com, in October of 2020 to
browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts,
however, he was denied a user experience similar to that of a
sighted individual due to the Web site's lack of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodation.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination, thus he seeks a 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 consumers.
Primal Nutrition, LLC is a paleo friendly food company that owns
and operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
QUAID HARLEY: Sentry Select Files Insurance Suit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Quaid Harley Davidson, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Sentry Select Insurance Company, a
Wisconsin corporation v. Quaid Harley Davidson, Inc., a California
corporation, and Lisa Hill, an individual, on behalf of herself,
the proposed class(es), all other similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, Case No. 5:20-cv-02145-JWH-KK (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 14, 2020).
The case is assigned to Judge John W. Holcomb.
Quaid Harley-Davidson, Inc. operates as a motor vehicle dealer. The
Company offers new and used vehicles, financing, repairing, and
service center services. Quaid Harley-Davidson serves clients in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Hobbs, Esq.
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
11766 Wilshire Boulevard Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-6546
Telephone: (310) 445-0800
Facsimile: (310) 473-2525
E-mail: rhobbs@selmanlaw.com
ayuter@selmanlaw.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maria Vecchio filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled MARIA VECCHIO, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., EXAMONE
WORLD WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC, Case No. 16-cv-5165, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
On September 18, 2020, the District Court issued an Opinion and
Order granting the motion of the defendants in 16 Civ. 5165 to
decertify the case's preliminarily certified FLSA collective.
The Federal Action was filed on behalf of Mobile Examiners who
visit patients (most commonly insurance applicants) at their homes
or places of business, and conduct physical examinations and basic
lab work for the purposes of insurance and benefits eligibility and
underwriting) under federal law based on the exact same underlying
alleged facts and circumstances.
The appellate case is captioned as Vecchio v. Quest Diagnostics,
Inc., Case No. 20-3571, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Vecchio, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Salvatore Charles Badala, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
400 Broadhollow Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
E-mail: SBadala@napolilaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ExamOne World Wide,
Inc., and ExamOne LLC are represented by:
Arthur James Rooney, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
300 East Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 861-2838
E-mail: Arthur.Rooney@bakermckenzie.com
RENTSPREE INC: Faces Brown Suit Over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rentspree, Inc. The
case is captioned as Jennifer Lee Brown, on behalf of herself and
all individuals similarly situated; and Christopher W. Brown, on
behalf of himself and all individuals similarly situated v.
Rentspree, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01167-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va., Oct. 5,
2020).
The nature of the suit is "consumer credit" filed pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Anthony J. Trenga.
Rentspree, Inc. provides real estate agents and landlords a tool to
collect and request online rental applications for free.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7570
Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
REZULT GROUP: Stallworth Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meka Stallworth, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE REZULT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00932 (M.D. Tenn., October 29, 2020) brings this complaint
to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately December
2018 to April 2019 to perform various consulting and related
services.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week,
but they were not paid any overtime at the proper overtime rate at
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours
they worked in excess of 40. Instead, the Defendant paid them
straight-time-for-overtime in which they only receive regular
hourly rates for all hours worked.
The Rezult Group, Inc. provides staffing solutions for companies in
the technology, accounting, finance, and healthcare IT scores
across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
Nashville, TN 37215
Tel: (615) 250-2000
E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Amigon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO AMIGON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES LLC and
STEVEN CESTARO, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05222 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a backhoe operator from
in or around February 2017 through in or around December 2018 and
again from in or around March 2019 through in or around January
2020.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he only received wages for the time spent performing
work on job sites. The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate
the Plaintiff for the time spent traveling between the Maspeth Yard
and the job sites, and for the time spent at the Maspeth Yard
performing duties such as receiving job assignments, inspecting the
backhoe and preparing reports of the job sites. As a result, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff's overtime premiums of one
and one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants failed to
maintain any formal timekeeping system to keep track of the hours
that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated machine operators
spent in the Maspeth Yard and traveling between the Maspeth and the
job sites. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements and a proper wage notice when he was hired
and/or before change of pay rate.
Safeway Construction Enterprises LLC offers underground
installation, repairs, upgrades and maintenance of gas, electrical,
water, steam and telecommunication infrastructure throughout the
New York metropolitan area. Steven Cestaro is in-charge of the
day-to-day operations, including hiring and firing employees and
setting he schedules and wage rates of employees. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 385-9700
Fax: (212) 385-0800
SAGINAW, MI: Alcona County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Alcona County, MI, by its Board of Commissioners, et
al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
styled as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself and all those similarly
situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay
City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asked the Court for an order:
1. certifying a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3) defined as follows:
"all persons and entities that owned real property in the
following counties, whose real property, during the
relevant time period, was seized through a real property
tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at
tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and
were not refunded the value of the property in excess of
the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay,
Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron,
Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland,
Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle,
Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and
Washtenaw";
2. appointing E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm PC and
Philip L Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC as Co-Lead
Counsel; and
3. appointing Thomas A. Fox as class representative.
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on October 16, 2020, entered an
order granting Plaintiff's Motions to Lift the Stay, Certify the
Class, and Appoint Class Counsel, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Expedited Consideration and Wayside Church's Motion for Leave
to File a Response as Moot.
According to the Plaintiff, counties throughout Michigan foreclose
on parcels when their property taxes are unpaid. But when the
Counties auction the foreclosed parcels, they keep all of the sales
proceeds and destroy any value beyond the auction price, even if
the property's value far exceeds the amount of the tax
delinquency.
The Plaintiff Thomas A. Fox was the owner of residential property
in Gratiot County (the Property), which, like the other Defendant
Counties, has affirmatively elected to administer the tax
foreclosure process instead of allowing the state to administer it.
As of the auction sale, the Property had an outstanding tax
delinquency of $3,091.23. The Defendants seized ownership of the
Property on or about February 21, 2017. At this time, the Property
had a fair market value of at least $50,400.00. The Defendants
later sold the Property at a tax auction on August 16, 2017 for
$25,500.00. The Property had equity -- that is, the difference
between what the Property was worth and the tax delinquency that
Plaintiff owed. The Plaintiff had a property interest in this
equity. But the Defendants seized it and failed to return it. The
Gratiot Defendants retained the entire value of the sales proceeds
even though the sales proceeds were $22,408.77 more than the amount
of the tax delinquency. Throughout, they neither initiated a
condemnation action nor afforded Plaintiff any process to seek the
equity's return.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Alcona County, MI, et
al., Case No. 20-111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly
situated, is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
Defendants-Petitioners In re: ALCONA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; CHERYL FRANKS, in her official and individual
capacities; WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI; CATHERINE MCCLARY; OGEMAW COUNTY,
MI, by its Board of Commissioners; DWIGHT MCINTYRE, in his official
and individual capacities; CRAWFORD COUNTY, MI; KATE M. WAGNER;
JOSEPH V. WAKELEY; MACOMB COUNTY, MI; LAWRENCE ROCCA; PRESQUE ISLE
COUNTY, MI; and BRIDGET LALONDE are represented by:
Matthew T. Nelson, Esq.
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD
150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 752-2000
E-mail: mnelson@wnj.com
- and -
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
DYKEMA
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 374-9100
E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com
- and -
Gregory M. Meihn, Esq.
FOLEY & MANSFIELD
130 E. Nine Mile Road
Ferndale, MI 48220
Telephone: (248) 721-4200
E-mail: gmeihn@foleymansfield.com
- and -
Charles Lawler, Esq.
CLARK HILL
212 E. Cesar E. Chavez Avenue
Lansing, MI 48906
Telephone: (517) 318-3100
E-mail: clawler@clarkhill.com
- and -
Aaron C. Thomas, Esq.
MACOMB COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
1 S. Main Street, Eighth Floor
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
Telephone: (586) 469-6346
SAGINAW, MI: Alpena County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Arenac County, MI, by its Board of Commissioners, et
al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
styled as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself and all those similarly
situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay
City.
The Plaintiff asked the Court for an order:
1. certifying a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3) defined as follows:
"all persons and entities that owned real property in the
following counties, whose real property, during the
relevant time period, was seized through a real property
tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at
tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and
were not refunded the value of the property in excess of
the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay,
Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron,
Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland,
Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle,
Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and
Washtenaw";
2. appointing E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm PC and
Philip L Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC as Co-Lead
Counsel; and
3. appointing Thomas A. Fox as class representative.
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on October 16, 2020, entered an
order granting Plaintiff's Motions to Lift the Stay, Certify the
Class, and Appoint Class Counsel, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion
for Expedited Consideration and Wayside Church's Motion for Leave
to File a Response as Moot.
According to the Plaintiff, counties throughout Michigan foreclose
on parcels when their property taxes are unpaid. But when the
Counties auction the foreclosed parcels, they keep all of the sales
proceeds and destroy any value beyond the auction price, even if
the property's value far exceeds the amount of the tax
delinquency.
The Plaintiff Thomas A. Fox was the owner of residential property
in Gratiot County (the Property), which, like the other Defendant
Counties, has affirmatively elected to administer the tax
foreclosure process instead of allowing the state to administer it.
As of the auction sale, the Property had an outstanding tax
delinquency of $3,091.23. The Defendants seized ownership of the
Property on or about February 21, 2017. At this time, the Property
had a fair market value of at least $50,400.00. The Defendants
later sold the Property at a tax auction on August 16, 2017 for
$25,500.00. The Property had equity -- that is, the difference
between what the Property was worth and the tax delinquency that
Plaintiff owed. The Plaintiff had a property interest in this
equity. But the Defendants seized it and failed to return it. The
Gratiot Defendants retained the entire value of the sales proceeds
even though the sales proceeds were $22,408.77 more than the amount
of the tax delinquency. Throughout, they neither initiated a
condemnation action nor afforded Plaintiff any process to seek the
equity's return.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Alpena County, MI, et
al., Case No. 20-110, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly
situated, is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
Defendants-Petitioners In re: ALPENA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; ARENAC COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners;
BAY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; CLARE COUNTY, MI, by
its Board of Commissioners; GENESEE COUNTY, MI; GLADWIN COUNTY, MI,
by its Board of Commissioners; GRATIOT COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; HURON COUNTY, MI; ISABELLA COUNTY, MI, by its Board
of Commissioners; JACKSON COUNTY, MI; LAPEER COUNTY, MI; LENAWEE
COUNTY, MI; MIDLAND COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners;
MONTMORENCY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioner; OSCODA
COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; OSTEGO COUNTY, MI;
ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MI; SAGINAW COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; SANILAC COUNTY, MI; ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI; and
TUSCOLA COUNTY, MI, are represented by:
Jennifer Anne Richards, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
17436 College Parkway
Livonia, MI 48152
Telephone: (734) 261-2400
E-mail: jrichards@cmda-law.com
SCIOTO DOWNS: Neal Suit in Ohio Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scioto Downs, Inc.
doing business as: Eldorado Gaming Scioto Downs. The case is styled
as Spencer Neal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Scioto Downs, Inc., doing business as: Eldorado Gaming
Scioto Downs; and Columbus Southeast Hotel Group LLC, doing
business as: Hampton Inn & Suites Columbus Scioto Downs, Case No.
2:20-cv-05240-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley.
Scioto Downs, Inc. owns and operates a harness horse racing club.
The Company offers gaming, racing, restaurants, and meeting
facilities. Scioto Downs serves customers in the State of Ohio.
Columbus Southeast Hotel Group LLC is a joint venture of Eldorado
Resorts, Inc. with Vista Host, Inc. to develop a new 118-room
Hampton Inn & Suites hotel that will be attached to Eldorado's
Scioto Downs Racino in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin George Meeker, Esq.
BLAKEMORE, MEEKER & BOWLER CO., L.P.A.
495 Portage Lakes Dr.
Akron, OH 44319
Telephone: (330) 253-3337
Facsimile: (330) 253-4131
E-mail: cgm@bmblaw.com
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Beach Glo Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEACH GLO TANNING STUDIO INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-13901-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J.,
Oct. 5, 2020) arises from the Defendant's denial of coverage for
losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff purchased a policy of full coverage insurance issued
by the Defendants that would provide coverage for any kind of loss
of income. In March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to close its
business pursuant to the closure orders of the state due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have refused to cover
losses caused by the closure orders as part of business
interruption coverage. The Defendants have denied similar claims
submitted by other members located throughout the country. The suit
further asserts a claim against the Defendants for breaches of
their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial
property insurance policies to indemnify the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and
related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to
stop the human-to-human and surface-to-human spread of the COVID-19
outbreak.
The Plaintiff is a tanning studio located in Ocean County, New
Jersey offering a variety of tanning products and services.
Scottsdale Insurance Company provides property and casualty
insurance services. The Company offers insurance products such as
commercial transportation, commercial property, employers, liquor,
aircraft liability, general liability, public entity, and
veterinary pet insurance. Scottsdale Insurance serves customers
throughout the United States.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the parent company of
Scottsdale Insurance, offers property and casualty, life insurance,
banking, retirement, and investment services. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
Joshua S. Kincannon, Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636-8000
Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
jkincannon@wilentz.com
- and -
Luke Montgomery, Esq.
Brad Ponder, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 2005
Telephone: (888) 201-0305
Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com
- and -
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (336) 333-9889
Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
SEAWORLD PARKS: Kouball Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lisa Kouball filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled LISA KOUBALL, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEAWORLD PARKS &
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00870-CAB-BGS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15,
2020, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted SeaWorld's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff Kouball filed the putative consumer class action
complaint against Defendant SeaWorld on May 8, 2020. The complaint
asserts claims for: (1) violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) violation of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4) breach of contract; (5) unjust
enrichment; and (6) money had and received.
SeaWorld operates several amusement parks and water parks
throughout the United States, with locations in San Diego, Orlando,
and San Antonio. The Plaintiff alleges SeaWorld offers annual
passes that allow its customers to access its parks on an unlimited
basis.
The Plaintiff purchased four annual passes for SeaWorld's San Diego
location for which she is charged a total of $48.99 per month. In
March of 2020, SeaWorld closed all its parks due to the COVID-19
pandemic. On approximately April 23, 2020, the Plaintiff was
charged the full amount of her monthly payment of $48.99 for her
annual passes even though she did not have access to SeaWorld's
parks due to the closure.
The Plaintiff alleges she signed up for SeaWorld's annual
membership passes with the belief and on the basis that she would
have access to SeaWorld San Diego amusement park at any time during
the month in which she was charged. She further alleges she would
not have paid for the membership had she known that she would not
have access to the park and that SeaWorld continues charging its
customers monthly fees while the parks remain closed.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Nationwide class and California
subclass of all persons who were charged annual membership fees for
a period in which SeaWorld's parks were closed. SeaWorld moved to
dismiss the complaint on July 1, 2020. It moves to dismiss on the
grounds that the Plaintiff fails to plead all of her claims with
the required specificity under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8(a) and 9(b), fails to state each of her claims as a matter of
law, and lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court held a
telephonic hearing on Sept. 9, 2020.
The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Kouball v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Case No. 20-56069, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Lisa Kouball Mediation Questionnaire was due on
October 23, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 13, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 14, 2020;
-- Appellant Lisa Kouball opening brief is due on January 22,
2021;
-- Appellee SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. answering
brief is due on February 22, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LISA KOUBALL, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Michael Houchin, Esq.
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
E-mail: admin@consumersadvocates.com
Defendant-Appellee SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is
represented by:
Lawrence Y. Iser, Esq.
Kristen Louise Spanier, Esq.
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP
808 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 566-9800
E-mail: liser@kwikalaw.com
kspanier@kwikalaw.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Koustis Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE G. KOUSTIS and RONALD J. COLLINS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02425 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 26, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice in violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
The Defendant is the current servicer of the Plaintiffs' and class
members' notes, and mortgages on real property that secure those
notes. The Plaintiffs' and class members' loans are each a
"federally related mortgage loan" as defined by RESPA and
Regulation X.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and class members each
submitted their borrower inquiries to the Defendant at the address,
email address, and/or facsimile number designated for receipt of
notices of errors and requests for information, pursuant to the
law. However, the Defendant did not otherwise make a substantive
response to the Plaintiffs' and class members' borrower inquiries
following the issuance of the active litigation letters. As such,
the Defendant failed to provide adequate written responses as
required by RESPA.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with RESPA and
Regulation X, the Plaintiffs and class members were each harmed
because they incurred the expenses associated with sending borrower
inquiries - such as their time, postage, etc. - but they either did
not receive the information to which they were legally entitled or
did not receive a reasonable investigation of the purported errors
regarding their loans, as required under RESPA and Regulation X.
Thus, the Defendant's practice of sending active litigation letters
and failing to provide substantive responses to borrower inquiries
is part of a sustained pattern and practice of noncompliance with
RESPA and Regulation X, the suit says.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. operates as a mortgage servicing
company. The Company specializes in the servicing of single-family
residential mortgage loans. Select Portfolio Servicing offers its
services in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW
P.O. Box 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
SHELTER MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. SHELTER
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SHELTER INSURANCE COMPANIES, Case No.
1:20-cv-24465 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement
obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly
situated under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the
Social Security Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have
also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the Class members for
accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements
with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and Shelter Insurance Companies
are companies that issue property and casualty policies with
principal place of businesses in Columbia, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Michael O. Mena, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd. 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
mmena@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) 461-5100
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
alfred@armaslaw.com
SIGMA DINER: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RIVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SIGMA DINER CORP. d/b/a STOP 20 DINER, 1336 HEMPSTEAD
REALTY LLC, STEPHEN SERAFIS, and CONSTANTINOS SERAFIS, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-05229 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment, the
Defendants paid him a flat weekly salary that did not provide him
with the legally-required minimum wage and overtime premium pay for
hours worked over 40 each week or spread-of-hours premiums for days
when he worked in excess of 10 hours. In addition, the Defendants
failed to provide him with accurate wage statements or wage notices
pursuant to the federal and state laws.
Mr. Rivera worked for the Defendants at Stop 20 Diner as a cook
from in or around October 2016 through on or about June 21, 2020.
Sigma Diner Corp. owns and operates a restaurant under the name
"Stop 20 Diner," located in Elmont, New York.
1336 Hempstead Realty LLC owns the premises where Stop 20 Diner is
located.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
SIMON & SCHUSTER: Mejico Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY MEJICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC. and DOES 1–10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02299 (C.D. Cal., November
3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has offered free trial
online Pimsleur language learning service/subscription and related
products that violate the California law. Specifically, the
Defendant: (a) fails to present the automatic renewal offer terms
or continuous service offer terms, including its full cancellation
policy, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity
to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or
purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) charges consumer credit or
debit cards without first obtaining affirmative consent to
automatically renewing charges; and (c) fails to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding
how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer.
As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff and Class members is an unconditional gift pursuant
to California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17603 and must be
refunded.
Simon & Schuster, Inc. is an American publishing company
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SOUTH SHORE: Underpays Non-exempt Workers, Perez et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
HELDER PEREZ and JEORGE ALBERTO LOPEZ SANCHEZ, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v.
SOUTH SHORE DRYWALL INC. and JOSEPH ZANGLA, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05215 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful policies, practices and procedures in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
drywall construction and repair workers, allege the Defendants of
willfully failing and refusing to pay them regular and overtime
wages for all hours worked due to time shaving. Additionally, the
Defendants failed to provide proper wage notices and proper wage
statements.
South Shore Drywall Inc. is a drywall contractor owned by Defendant
Joseph Zangia, who is the president and CEO and exercised
functional control over the business and financial operations of
the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
petition for review of the trial court's decision in the putative
class action suit initiated by St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust with the Texas Supreme Court remains
pending.
On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.
The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.
The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.
The Company filed a petition to review the trial court's decision
with the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court requested a response
from the plaintiff. The Court subsequently requested full briefing
on the merits of the case.
The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage. The Company denies all allegations and intends
to continue to defend this case vigorously.
Southwestern Energy said, "The Company does not expect this case to
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations,
financial position or cash flows of the Company after taking
insurance into account. Additionally, it is not possible at this
time to estimate the amount of any additional loss, or range of
loss, that is reasonably possible."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.
SPECIALTY PROMOTIONS: Citizens Files Insurance Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Specialty Promotions, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Citizens Insurance Company of America, a
Michigan corporation; and Hanover Insurance Company, a New
Hampshire corporation v. Specialty Promotions, Inc., a Texas
corporation and Roger Stiles, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-06026 (N.D. Ill., Oct.
9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Insurance.
The case is assigned to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr.
Specialty Promotions, Inc., doing business as Specialty Print
Communications, offers printing and direct marketing services. The
Company provides loyalty, card issuance platform, marketing on
demand, inline, lettershop, binding, and books printing services
for direct marketers. Specialty Print Communications markets its
services in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Alan Goldwater, Esq.
Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 345-1718
E-mail: jgoldwater@lbbslaw.com
kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
SQUARE INC: Faces Thorne Suit Over Denial of Fraud Dispute Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEEANN THORNE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SQUARE, INC. and SUTTON BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-05119
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful
conduct of denying the Plaintiff's fraud dispute claims in
violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the New
York General Business Practice.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a victim of electronic
fraud. The perpetrator, who is unknown to Plaintiff, fraudulently
misrepresented themselves online in a successful effort to obtain
the Plaintiff's Cash App payment information which they used to
charge and withdraw roughly $3,000 from the Plaintiff's account.
The Plaintiff disputed the charges with the Defendants. She alleges
that the Defendants' error resolution procedures violate the EFTA
dispute process provisions in a variety of ways. First, the
Defendants unlawfully require a host of information to be provided
as a condition precedent of opening or investigating a dispute or
resolving a dispute in a consumer's favor. Second, the Defendants'
error resolution process violates the EFTA by explicitly placing
the burden of proving the unauthorized transfer on the consumer
(and denying disputes on grounds that the consumer has not met his
or her burden of proving that the transaction was unauthorized).
And lastly, the Defendants' error resolution process also violates
the EFTA because the Defendants deny claims without providing any
explanation or providing to the consumer the documents Defendants
reviewed during the investigation.
The Defendants have thus refused to refund the Plaintiff the $3,000
that was drained from her account as a result of fraud, the suit
says.
Square, Inc. is an American financial services, merchant services
aggregator, and mobile payment company.
Sutton Bank is a state chartered banking association and is
chartered and located in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 500-6114
Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
ST. ANTHONY: Thompson Appeals Judgment to Minn. Appeals Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Linda Cobb Thompson filed an appeal from the District
Court's Judgment dated September 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled Linda Cobb Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Dominium Management Services, LLC, St.
Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, Limited Partnership, St.
Anthony Leased Housing Associates U, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-20-4576,
in the Minnesota District Court, Hennepin County.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 16,
2020, the lawsuit seeks permanent injunction enjoining the
Defendants from charging rents in excess of fair market rent for
all current and future Legends tenants.
According to the complaint, since 2015, the Defendant has
unlawfully overcharged rent to dozens of low-income senior citizens
living in an apartment complex in St. Anthony, Minnesota-The
Legends at Silver Lake. Dominium has imposed rents well above
statutorily mandated limits even as it falsely assured tenants that
it was complying with the required rent limits.
According to the complaint, when Dominium was confronted last year
with evidence that it had overcharged rent to Legends tenants for
years, it refused to either refund the overcharges to tenants or
comply with the rent limits going forward. The Plaintiff files this
class action to stop Dominium unlawful conduct and remedy the harm
caused to the tenants.
The appellate case is captioned as Linda Cobb Thompson, Appellant,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated vs. St.
Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, LP, et al., Respondents, Case
No. A20-1367, in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Cobb Thompson is represented by:
John D. Cann, Esq.
James William Poradek, Esq.
Margaret Louise Kaplan, Esq.
HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER
382 Banfil Street.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Telephone: (612) 600-4028
E-mail: jcann@hjcmn.org
jporadek@hjcmn.org
mkaplan@hjcmn.org
Defendants-Respondents St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates, II,
LP; St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates, II, LLC; and Dominium
Management Services, LLC, are represented by:
David Allan Davenport, Esq.
Peter Gregory Economou, Esq.
Sean Michael Zaroogian, Esq.
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE
Capella Tower, Suite 3500
225 South Sixth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4639
Telephone: (612) 604-6400
Facsimile: (612) 604-6800
E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com
peconomou@winthrop.com
szaroogian@winthrop.com
STATE FARM: Faces Rosenberg-Wohl Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE ROSENBERG-WOHL, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-587264 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendants'
practiced of denying the Plaintiff's claim in a way that conceals
her rights under the homeowner's policy.
According to the complaint, in 2019, the Plaintiff decided to
replace her staircase as she became concerned for the safety of her
guests, particularly for elderly neighbors, and for the possibility
of a liability claim under policies underwritten by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff then submitted a formal claim under the State Farm
Homeowners Policy as a covered loss of the safe egress from her
house, by way of her staircase, and the risk of resulting injury.
In August 2020, the Defendants summarily denied the Plaintiff's
claim, stating that there was "no evidence of a covered cause or
loss nor any covered accidental direct physical loss to the front
exterior stairway." The Plaintiff allegedly spent just under
$70,000 to replace her staircase, the suit says.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers automobile, property, casualty, health,
disability, and life insurance services. State Farm Fire and
Casualty serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Rosenberg-Wohl
HERSHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL
A Professional Corporation
315 Montgomery St., 10th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 829-4330
E-mail: david@hrw-law.com
SUNOCO INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cline Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco,
INC. (R&M) filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS
MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Case No. 6:17-CV-00313-JAG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma,
Muskogee.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., denied Sunoco's motion to stay the case
pending its appeal of the District Court's class certification
ruling to the Tenth Circuit.
Mr. Cline owns a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in
Oklahoma. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing &
Terminals, L.P. ("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's
wells. Oklahoma law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to
Mr. Cline. If Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline
interest on the payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act. Mr. Cline has sued Sunoco for
paying his production proceeds late without paying the required
interest.
On Oct. 3, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Cline's motion to maintain a
class action on behalf of other owners whom Sunoco paid late and
did not pay interest. On Oct. 8, 2019, Sunoco filed a motion to
stay the case pending its appeal of the District Court's class
certification ruling to the Tenth Circuit. On Oct. 17, 2019,
Sunoco filed its appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as Cline, et al. v. Sunoco Inc.
(R&M), Case No. 20-7064, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Docketing statement is due on November 13, 2020 for Sunoco
Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M);
-- Transcript order form is due on November 13, 2020 for Sunoco
Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); and
-- Notice of appearance is due on November 13, 2020 for Perry
Cline, Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc.
(R&M).[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON
3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
Building B, Suite 350B
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (903) 645-7333
E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com
bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
dpate@nixlaw.com
- and -
Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
Emily Nash Kitch, Esq.
Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
BARNES & LEWIS
128 West Hefner Road
Oklahoma City, OK 73114
Telephone: (405) 843-0363
E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com
ekitch@barneslewis.com
plewis@barneslewis.com
- and -
Michael Burrage, Esq.
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 16-7800
E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
- and -
Paula Jantzen, Esq.
Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
400 North Walnut Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 239-6040
E-mail: pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com
jryan@ryanwhaley.com
pryan@ryanwhaley.com
- and -
Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
SMOLEN LAW
611 South Detroit
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 777-4529
- and -
James Edward Warner, III, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON
512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 206
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
E-mail: jwarner@nixlaw.com
- and -
Russell S. Post, Esq.
BECK REDDEN
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 951-3700
Defendants-Appellants SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P.
and SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) are represented by:
Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY
6301 North Western Avenue, Suite 250
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 702-9900
E-mail: MChristiansen@ELBattorneys.com
- and -
Matthew Dekovich, Esq.
Daniel Mead McClure, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
E-mail: matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com
dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20001-4501
Telephone: (202) 662-0200
E-mail: jonathan.franklin@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Emma Perry, Esq.
Robert D. Woods, Esq.
R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
YETTER COLEMAN
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-8000
E-mail: eperry@yettercoleman.com
rwoods@yettercoleman.com
pyetter@yettercoleman.com
- and -
Michael A. Heidler, Esq.
VINSON & ELKINS
2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746-7568
Telephone: (512) 542-8400
- and -
Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq.
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS
1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 892-7533
- and -
Marie R. Yeates, Esq.
VINSON & ELKINS
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500
Houston, TX 77002-6760
Telephone: (713) 758-2222
SUNWORKS INC: Hoang Calls Company Sale to Peck Co. "Unfair"
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINH HOANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SUNWORKS, INC., CHARLES F. CARGILE, DANIEL GROSS, JUDITH HALL,
RHONE RESCH, STANLEY SPEER, THE PECK COMPANY HOLDINGS, INC., and
PECK MERCURY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02106-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal.,
October 22, 2020) is brought for breaches of fiduciary duty arising
from the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Peck Company as
a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin an
upcoming stockholder vote on an a proposed transaction.
The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public stockholders of Sunworks, Inc.
The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in an
August 10, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Form 8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan of merger.
Under the terms of the agreement, Sunworks will become an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Peck Company, and Sunworks stockholders
will receive only 0.185171 shares of Peck common stock for every
share of Sunworks common stock they own, resulting in a merger
consideration of approximately $0.80 per share of Sunworks' common
stock based upon the closing price of Peck on August 7, 2020 of
$4.33 per share. As a result of the proposed transaction, Sunworks
shareholders will own only approximately 36.54% of Peck.
Thereafter, on October 1, 2020, Peck filed a registration statement
on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the proposed transaction,
and which was later amended by Peck on October 14, 2020 on Form
S-4/A.
According to the complaint, the Defendants caused to be filed the
materially deficient amended registration statement on October 14,
2020 with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote
their Sunworks shares in favor of the proposed transaction. The
amended registration statement is materially deficient, deprives
Sunworks' stockholders of the information they need to make an
intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to tender
their shares in favor of the proposed transaction, and is thus in
breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties. Specifically, the
amended registration statement omits and/or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process
and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b)
the financial projections for Sunworks and Peck, provided by
Sunworks to the Company's financial advisor Holthouse Carlin & Van
Trigt LLP; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses, if any, that purport to support the fairness
opinions created by HCVT and provide to the Company and the Board.
Sunworks, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides photovoltaic
based power systems for the agricultural, commercial, industrial,
public works, and residential markets in California, Massachusetts,
Nevada, Oregon, New Jersey, and Washington.
Peck Company Holdings, Inc. operates as a solar engineering,
construction, and procurement contractor for commercial and
industrial customers in the Northeastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 534-2590
Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Mart Securities Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported securities class action suit
entitled, Brian Mart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al.
On September 29, 2020, a complaint in a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against the company and three of its
present or former officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota under the following caption: Brian Mart,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business, operational and compliance policies, and financial
results during the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8,
2020 ("alleged class period"), in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all investors
who purchased our stock during the alleged class period.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and an award
of costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.
Tactile said, "We have not yet responded to the complaint, and do
not have a deadline to respond, but we intend to move to dismiss
it."
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. a medical technology company that
develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment
of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Telebrands Corp. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Telebrands Corp., Case No.
1:20-cv-08555-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick.
TeleBrands Corp. operates as a television marketing company. The
Company offers designing, manufacturing, marketing, and
distributing consumer products. TeleBrands uses television, and
internet advertising to market and sell their products. TeleBrands
serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
TITAN STAFFING: Facing Arredondo Class Suit in NY State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial interference was filed on October 5, 2020,
in the case styled as KAZANDRA ARREDONDO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TITAN STAFFING SYSTEMS, INC., AND
WILLIAM ALMONTE, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 610074/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
Nassau Cty., Oct. 5, 2020).
The case is assigned to Judge Thomas Feinman.
Titan Staffing Systems, Inc. is a staffing agency based in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
FITAPELI & SCHAFFER LLP
28 Liberty St
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
The Defendants are represented by:
COLE, SCHOTZ P.A.
Court Plaza North
25 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 489-3000
TRADER JOE'S: Robie Alleges Misleading Cereal Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ROBIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-07355 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's conduct of falsely
and misleadingly markets its breakfast cereal product to consumers
including the Plaintiff in violation of the California Business &
Professions Code and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The Defendant manufactures distributes, markets, labels and sells
breakfast cereal labeled as "Vanilla Almond Clusters - A blend of
Vanilla Oat Clusters, Corn Flakes, Multigrain Flakes and Almonds"
under their Trader Joe's brand.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly
markets the product to consumers as having a primary characterizing
flavor of "Vanilla" that comes from vanilla beans, from the vanilla
plant. Where in reality, the product contains non-vanilla,
artificial flavors, not disclosed to consumers and has de minimis
vanilla.
As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less $3.89 for boxes of
20 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of
the product if represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says.
Trader Joe's Company is an American chain of grocery stores
headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E Fl 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tradeweb Markets Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that he Company's
motions to dismiss the antitrust class actions related to trading
practices in United States Treasury securities auctions are
pending.
The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other
financial institutions, in antitrust class actions (consolidated
into two actions) relating to trading practices in United States
Treasury securities auctions.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the actions, believes it
has substantial defenses to the other plaintiff's claims and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Additionally, the Company was dismissed from a class action
relating to an interest rate swaps matter in 2017, but that matter
continues against the remaining defendant financial institutions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating
electronic marketplaces for its global network of clients across
the financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of
clients across the institutional, wholesale and retail client
sectors, including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge
funds, insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers,
proprietary trading firms and retail brokerage and financial
advisory firms, as well as regional dealers. The company is based
in New York, New York.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Peek Appeals Thompson Case Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Peck Et Al Policy Holdings LLC by Levi Katz, et al.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled
GAIL THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05422-CAS-GJS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Gail J. Standish of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has issued protective order in the case.
Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential and proprietary actuarial, business, technical, and
financial information of Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Co.
as well as private information of Plaintiffs Thompson, individually
and as Power of Attorney for Lois Thompson, for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted. It is the
intent of the parties that information will not be designated as
confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated
without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a
confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it
should not be part of the public record of the case.
The protections conferred by the Order cover not only Protected
Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from
Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or
compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony,
conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel or
their Experts that reveals Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.
The appellate case is captioned as Gail Thompson, et al. v.
Transamerica Life Insurance Co., Case No. 20-56088, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Frank 2000 Irrevocable Trust dated January 1, 2000
and Peck Et Al Policy Holdings LLC By Levi Katz Mediation
Questionnaire was due on October 26, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 14, 2020;
-- Appellants Frank 2000 Irrevocable Trust dated January 1, 2000
and Peck Et Al Policy Holdings LLC By Levi Katz opening brief is
due on January 25, 2021;
-- Appellees Belinda Bucci, Debra Lewis, Diana Lewis, Marc
Soble, Michael H. Stephens, Hans Sunder, Kathleen Swift, Gail
Thompson, Lois Thompson and Transamerica Life Insurance Company
answering brief is due on February 22, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees GAIL THOMPSON, individually and as Power of
Attorney for Lois Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; HANS SUNDER, Trustee; SUNDER IRREVOCABLE TRUST;
DIANA LEWIS; MARC SOBLE, Trustee; MARILYN B. SOBLE IRREVOCABLE
TRUST DATED 11/19/1997; MICHAEL H. STEPHENS; BELINDA BUCCI,
Trustee; NANCY AND CHARLES BARCELONA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; KATHLEEN
SWIFT; and DEBRA LEWIS are represented by:
Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
Gerald S. Flanagan, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
E-mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
- and -
Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
afriedman@bffb.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
James Richard Patterson, Esq.
PATTERSON LAW GROUP
1350 Columbia Street, Unit 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 398-4760
E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
Objectors-Appellants PECK ET AL POLICY HOLDINGS LLC BY LEVI KATZ
and FRANK 2000 IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 1, 2000 are
represented by:
Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP
28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 342-7442
E-mail: dkeller@kfjlegal.com
Defendant-Appellee TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Erin Elizabeth Bennett, Esq.
EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 337-5583
E-mail: erin.bennett@mhllp.com
- and -
Jarrett Earl Ganer, Esq.
Thomas F. A. Hetherington, Esq.
Hutson Brit Smelley, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 337-5585
E-mail: jarrett.ganer@mhllp.com
tom.hetherington@mhllp.com
hutson.smelley@mhllp.com
- and -
Vivian Orlando, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 614-7358
E-mail: vorlando@hinshawlaw.com
TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASHLEY HARRIS, (On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated) v. TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
562020CA001394AXXXHC, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie 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. 2:20-cv-14368-KMM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Travel Resorts of America, Inc. is a membership-based camping
service with resorts located along the East coast.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nelson C. Bellido, Esq.
ROIG LAWYERS
44 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 405-0997
Facsimile: (305) 405-1022
E-mail: nbellido@roiglawyers.com
UNISYS CORP: Kelley Seeks Collective Status of Managers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMON KELLEY, v. UNISYS
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-03237-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying a
collective action consisting of, and authorizing notice of the
lawsuit to:
"a putative class, Client Service Managers (CSMs) and other
similarly situated employees, who were collectively victims of a
single decision, policy, or plan of Unisys to evade compensating
these employees for overtime work, by designating them as
exempt employees."
Unisys is an American global information technology company based
in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, that provides IT services, software,
and technology.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Whitcomb, Esq.
WHITCOMB, SELINSKY, PC
2000 S. Colorado Blvd.
Tower One, Suite 9500
Denver, CO 80222
Telephone: (303) 534-1958
Facsimile: (303) 534-1949
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Scholl Prisoner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Steven Terner Mnuchin, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Colin Scholl, et al. v.
Steven Mnuchin, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
Mr. Mnuchin is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Treasury.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought an order:
1. certifying a class of incarcerated persons under FRCP
23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3); and
2. granting a class-wide preliminary injunction declaring the
Defendants' policy unlawful and requiring them to issue
Economic Incentive Payments (EIP) benefits to eligible
Class Members; and
3. appointing a co-lead class counsel.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' exclusion of
incarcerated people from the EIP program is unlawful and that
further delay will cause irreparable harm to themselves, the
proposed Class, and their friends and family members, particularly
given that the CARES Act's express purpose is to provide relief "as
rapidly as possible."
The appellate case is captioned as Colin Scholl, et al. v. Steven
Mnuchin, et al., Case No. 20-17077, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Steven Terner Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig, United
States Department of the Treasury, United States Internal Revenue
Service and United States of America Mediation Questionnaire was
due on October 27, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 19, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on December 21, 2020;
-- Appellants Steven Terner Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig, United
States Department of the Treasury, United States Internal Revenue
Service and United States of America opening brief is due on
January 28, 2021;
-- Appellees John Galvan, Colin Scholl, Lisa Strawn and Patrick
Taylor answering brief is due on March 1, 2021;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees COLIN SCHOLL and LISA STRAWN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jalle Dafa, Esq.
Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: jdafa@lchb.com
kdermody@lchb.com
ysalahi@lchb.com
- and -
Eva Jefferson Paterson, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
1999 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 288-8700
Facsimile: (510) 338-3030
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN GALVAN and PATRICK TAYLOR are
represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
Defendants-Appellants STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury;
CHARLES P. RETTIG, in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED
STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, are
represented by:
Julie Ciamporcero Avetta, Esq.
Michael J. Haungs, Esq.
Francesca Ugolini, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-2743
UNITED STATES: Cleveland Square Appeals Order to Federal Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Plaintiffs Cleveland Square, LLC, et al. filed an
appeal from the Federal Circuit's Opinion and Order dated August
12, 2020, and Judgment dated August 13, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, ET AL., FOR
THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No.
1:09-cv-00103-CFL, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
The origins of the dispute underlying the pending motions concern
land in the state of Washington that was converted into a
recreational train pursuant to Section 208 of the National Trails
System Act Amendments of 1983. The Plaintiffs filed suit over a
decade ago, alleging that the conversion constituted a taking of
their property without just compensation. The court certified an
initial class of over 500 members, which was subsequently split
into six subclasses. In 2012, the court ruled on cross-motions for
summary judgment, finding "the government liable to certain class
members within Subclass Two and Categories A through D of Subclass
Four" while also granting "the government summary judgment as to
class claimants in Subclass Four, Category E."
The Plaintiffs sought approval of a renewed notice to the class
regarding the settlement, which the government opposed to the same
grounds it had raised in its prior post-remand motions. The court
heal a fairness hearing on December 18, 2017 in Seattle,
Washington, in which numerous class members participated. On
January 26, 2018, the court approved the settlement agreement and
entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), enabling the government to appeal the settlement
approval immediately while reserving judgment on the matter of
whether the Plaintiffs could recover statutory legal fees and costs
beyond those already contained within the settlement agreement
itself. Effectively, the court employed Rule 54(b) to bifurcate its
approval of the settlement agreement from any determination
regarding legal fees and costs outside the settlement agreement.
On the government's subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed
this court's approval of the settlement on November 27, 2019 but
declined to address the government's arguments regarding legal fees
and costs on the jurisdictional ground that this court had not
previously acted regarding them. The Federal Circuit's mandate
issued on January 21, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
five separate motions, representing four different plaintiffs or
groups of plaintiffs, seeking statutory legal fees and costs
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Following an additional round of
motions practice in which the government sought to compel the
production of retainer and fee agreements from class counsel, the
government individually responded to each of the fee motions on
June 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed replies on July 6, 2020.
The appellate case is captioned as DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART,
Husband and Wife, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class
of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs; CLEVELAND SQUARE, LLC,
RC TC MERIDIAN RIDGE, LLC, TWOSONS LLC, GRETCHEN CHAMBERS, DENNIS
J. CRISPIN, DEBLOIS PROPERTIES, LLC, c/o David and Debra Deblois,
STAR L. EVANS, MICHAEL B. JACOBSEN, FRANCES JANE LEE, SUSAN B.
LONG, CLAUDIA MANSFIELD, FREDERICK P. MILLER, SUSAN L. MILLER, PBI
ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL G. RUSSELL, ELANA RUSSELL, JAMES M.
SATHER, KELLY J. SATHER, JAMES E. STRANG, D. MICHAEL YOUNG, JULIA
H. YOUNG, MOLLY A. JACOBSEN, LESLIE MILSTEIN, ALISON L. WEBB,
PATRICIA STRANG, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1072, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Cleveland Square, LLC; RC TC Meridian Ridge
LLC; TWOSONS LLC; Gretchen Chambers, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Guy Roger Chambers; Dennis J.
Crispin, as Trustee of that Certain Declaration of Trust dated
September 17, 1980; DeBlois Properties LLC; Star L. Evans; Michael
B. and Molly A. Jacobsen; Frances Jane Lee; Susan B. Long; Claudia
Mansfield, individually, and as Power of Attorney for C.A.
Mansfield; Frederick P. and Susan L. Miller; Leslie Milstein; PBI
Enterprises LLC; Michael G. and Elana Russell; James M. and Kelly
J. Sather; James E. and Patricia Strang; Alison L. Webb; and D.
Michael and Julia H. Young are represented by:
Mary Crego Peterson, Esq.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
Facsimile: (206) 623-7789
E-mail: mary.peterson@hcmp.com
UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in Samma Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Defendants United States Department of Defense, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANGE
SAMMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01104-PLF, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
involving review or appeal of agency decision.
On April 28, 2020, six named Plaintiffs (Samma, Abner Bouomo, Ahmad
Isiaka, Michael Perez, Sumin Park, and Yu Min Lee), who are
noncitizens serving in the United States Armed Forces, filed the
putative class action, claiming that the O-6 Requirement and the
Minimum Service Requirements in the N-426 Policy violate various
provisions of the APA. Of the six, five were serving in Active
Components while one, Isiaka, was serving in the Reserves. As
clarified by a later filing, the Plaintiffs specifically claim that
the O-6 Requirement, the Active Minimum Service Requirement, and
the Reservist Minimum Service Requirement are arbitrary and
capricious, and were enacted without notice and comment. With
respect to the Active and Reservist Minimum Service Requirements,
they further claim that they violate the APA because they are not
in accordance with law are in excess of statutory jurisdiction, and
they result in unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed agency
action.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel at the same time they filed their
initial complaint, seeking to certify a class consisting of: All
individuals who: (a) are noncitizens serving honorably in the U.S.
military; (b) have requested but not received a certified Form
N-426; and (c) are not Selected Reserve MAVNIs covered by the Kirwa
lawsuit.
The appellate case is captioned as Ange Samma, et al v. DOD, et
al., Case No. 20-5320, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Ange Samma, Abner Bouomo, Ahmad Isiaka,
Michael Perez, Sumin Park, and Yu Min Lee, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated; Timotius Gunawan and Rafael Leal
Machado are represented by:
Brett Max Kaufman, Esq.
Scarlet Kim, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2400
Telephone: (212) 549-2607
Defendant-Appellant United States Department of Defense, and Mark
T. Esper, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, are
represented by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
UNITED STATES: Faces Wilcox Prisoner Rights Suit in W.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against United States of America. The
case is styled as Steven Jon Wilcox #223862, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Secretary
of Treasury; Dana Knessel, Michigan Attorney General; and Heidi
Washington, Director, MDOC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00211-JTN-MV (W.D.
Mich., Oct. 14, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights laws.
The case is assigned to Judge Janet T. Neff.
The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the
federal government of the United States where it serves as an
executive department.
The Plaintiff appear pro se.[BN]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Santiago Suit in State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Regents of the
University of California. The case is styled as Sofia Santiago and
Valeria Revollo, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Baychildren's Physicians, a California
Corporation; Baychildren's Physicians, dba UCSF Benioff Children's
Physicians, an unknown business entity; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; and
The Regents of the University of California, a California
corporation, Case No. CGC20587405 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
Oct. 20, 2020).
A case management conference is set for March 24, 2021 before Judge
Samuel K. Feng.
The Regents of the University of California is the governing board
of the University of California. The Board has 26 voting members.
The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy,
with limited exceptions, to the Regents.
Baychildren's Physicians is a pediatric clinic in Berkeley,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by Kane Moon, Esq., at Moon & Yang.
VALARIS PLC: Zhang Class Action Stayed Amid Bankrụptcy Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valaris PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action suit
initiated by Xiaoyuan Zhang has now been stayed in light of the
Valaris plc bankruptcy filing.
On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris
shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris
shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The complaint cites general statements in press releases and SEC
filings and alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements or failed to disclose material information regarding the
performance of the company's ultra-deepwater segment, among other
things.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019 and July 31,
2019.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
The case has now been stayed in light of the Valaris plc bankruptcy
filing, with the exception that lead plaintiff may continue efforts
to serve certain defendants and may file an amended complaint.
Valaris said, "At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome
of these matters or the extent of any resulting liability.
Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The
Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides
drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company
is based in London, England.
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Hill Seeks Refund of Tickets & Citations
----------------------------------------------------------
DANA S. HILL, for herself and all others similarly situated v. TOWN
OF VALLEY BROOK, Case No. CJ-2020-5004 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma
Cty., Oct. 19, 2020) challenges the Defendant's conduct to assess
and collect fines and costs from citizens who were stopped by
Valley Brook Police Officers outside their jurisdiction.
On January 27, 2018, at the location of 6000 block of South
Eastern, the Plaintiff was stopped, detained and arrested by the
Valley Brook Police Department and charged with driving under the
influence, possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia,
and possession of controlled dangerous substances. The Plaintiff
paid the Defendant approximately $3,200 in fines and costs for the
three charges mentioned.
According to the complaint, Eastern Avenue, where the Defendant was
stopped, detained and arrested the Plaintiff, is located beyond the
eastern edge of the Town Valley Brook, and is outside the
Defendant's jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement or refund of money had and
received by the Defendant from her, as well as all others similarly
situated, of all amounts paid to the Defendant as a result of
tickets/citations issued by the Police Department while acting
outside their jurisdiction, the suit says.
The Town of Valley Brook is a municipal corporation created and
organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Box, Esq.
JEFFREY J. BOX, P.C.
400 North Walker Avenue, Suite 330
Oklahoma City, OK 73109
Telephone: (405) 600-9918
Facsimile: (405) 543-2336
E-mail: jeffreybox@coxinet.net
- and -
Marvel E. Lewis, Esq.
MARVEL E. LEWIS, P.C.
P.O. Box 338
Guthrie, OK 73044
Telephone: (405) 655-8288
Facsimile: (405) 322-5848
E-mail: marvel@marvellewislaw.com
VELLOSO & SANTOS: Buzzi et al. Seek Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDA DANIELE BUZZI, RAFAEL MARCOS DE OLIVEIRA AREDES, BETTINA
DE OLIVEIRA NICOLELLIS DELBONI, NATALIA DE OLIVEIRA NICOLELLIS
DELBONI, LUCIANA SANTOS DA ROCHA, BEATRIZ VENTURA PEREIRA, LEONARDO
BARROS NOBRE, MARIA PENHA BARONE, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RONNED DA SILVA, FLAVIA RIBEIRO HENSEL,
LENOIR-EVANDRO DOS SANTOS, VELLOSO & SANTOS, LLC, and V&V CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-02009 (M.D. Fla., October 29, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged illegal labor policies and practices in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were required by the
Defendants to work more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all the hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead,
the Defendants paid them straight time pay for all hours. The
Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants engaged in unlawful
retaliation.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid
servers, cashiers and cooks.
Ronne Da Silva is the owner and/or manager of Defendant V&V Corp.
Defendants Flavia Ribeiro Hensel and Lenoir-Evandro Dos Santos are
the owners of Velloso & Santos LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vincent B. Lynch, Esq.
Carlos J. Bonilla, Esq.
ELP Global, PLLC
7901 Kingpointe Parkway, Suite 8
Orlando, FL 32819
E-mail: vincent@elpglobal.com
carlos@elpglobal.com
VILLAGE GREEN: Fails to Pay OT to Service Managers, Manco Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL MANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VILLAGE GREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-3159
(N.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid time-and-one-half of his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Rather, the Defendant misclassified him as exempt from
the requirements of the FLSA and paid him primarily on a salaried
basis and without regard to the number of hours he actually
worked.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately June
of 2014 to March of 2020 as service manager.
Village Green Management Company is an Austin, Texas-based company
which offers apartment rentals and management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
VISION SERVICE: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCHMIDT, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved
Employees v. VISION SERVICE PLAN, Case No. RG20077472 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's systematic
violations of the California Labor Code with respect to its current
and former non-exempt employees who worked in the state of
California.
The Plaintiff and aggrieved employees bring this action to
challenge the Defendant's policies and practices of (l) failing to
pay them all minimum wages owed; (2) failing to pay overtime wages;
(3) failing to compensate for all hours worked; (4) failing to
authorize and permit to take meal and rest breaks to which they are
entitled by law; (5) failing to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements; and (6) failing to timely pay full wages upon
termination or resignation.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt customer service
representative for the Defendant at a Vision Service Plan location
in Rancho Cordova, California from approximately August 2015 to
August 2019.
Vision Service Plan operates a vision care health insurance company
throughout the United States and California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Ryan Hecht, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
rhecht@schneiderwallace.com
WALMART INC: Hellige Appeals S.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lance Hellige and Trista Oettle filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LANCE HELLIGE and
TRISTA OETTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455-DWD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The case is about WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Arkansas, selling a "Balloon Time
9.5" Helium Tank" that breached the implied warranty of
merchantability and, in turn, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In
pertinent part, the product is not of merchantable quality or fit
for its intended purpose of keeping helium balloons inflated for a
sufficiently long period of time, and, thus, has a propensity to
deteriorate and fail its essential purpose, namely that the product
contains only 80% helium and balloons tend to either not float or
sink to the ground after a handful of hours.
The appellate case is captioned as Lance Hellige, et al v. Walmart
Inc., Case No. 20-8031, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners LANCE HELLIGE and TRISTA OETTLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Peter J. Maag, Esq.
MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
22 W. Lorena Avenue
Wood River, IL 62095
Telephone: (618) 216-5291
Facsimile: (618) 551-0421
E-mail: lawmaag@gmail.com
Defendant-Respondent WALMART INC. is represented by:
James W. Ozog, Esq.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
222 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 542-8400
E-mail: jozog@goldbergsegalla.com
WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Brezinski Files Class Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Widener University.
The case is styled as Sara Brezinski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Widener University, Case No.
2:20-cv-04939-JMY (E.D. Pa., Oct. 6, 2020).
The nature of suit is "Diversity-Breach of Contract."
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John M. Younge.
Widener University is a private university in Chester,
Pennsylvania. The university has three other campuses: two in
Pennsylvania and one in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Avenue Suite 1300
Law & Finance Bldg
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Related to BolaWrap Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to its
BolaWrap product.
On September 23, 2020, Carone Cobden filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, former Chief Executive Officer David
Norris ("Norris"), Chief Financial Officer James A. Barnes
("Barnes") and President Thomas Smith ("Smith") in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-08760-DMG-PVCx. The class period in
the Complaint is defined as July 31, 2020 through September 23,
2020.
The Complaint alleges that the named defendants, in their
capacities as officers of the Company, knowingly made false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding trials of the
Company's BolaWrap product conducted by the Los Angeles Police
Department (the "BolaWrap Pilot Program").
The Complaint further alleges that the conduct of the named
defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's traded
securities, and that the disclosure of certain adverse information
to the public led to a decline in the market value of the Company's
securities. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On October 1, 2020, Joseph Mercurio filed a second putative class
action complaint against the Company, Norris, Smith, and Barnes in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, which contains substantially the same factual
allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Complaint, and is
docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09030-DMG-PVCx.
On October 15, 2020, Paula Earley filed a third putative class
action complaint against the Company, Smith, Norris, Barnes, Chief
Strategy Officer Mike Rothans, and Chief Executive Officer Marc
Thomas in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, which contains substantially the same factual
allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Complaint, but
defines the class period as April 29, 2020 through September 23,
2020, and alleges that the named defendants made additional false
or misleading statements in connection with BolaWrap and the
BolaWrap Pilot Program. The complaint is docketed as Case No.
2-20-cv-09444-DMG-PVCx.
On October 20, 2020, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee issued an order to show
cause why the above-described cases should not be consolidated
under the caption In re Wrap Technologies, Inc. Securities Exchange
Act Litigation, Case No. 20-8760-DMG (PVCx), with a single
consolidated class action complaint or designated operative
complaint.
Wrap Technologies said, "As such, the Company expects that these
cases will be consolidated, and that plaintiffs in these cases will
file a consolidated amended complaint following the selection of a
lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The
Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims raised therein.
Wrap Technologies, Inc. designs, produces, and markets security
products. The Company focuses on developing security products
designed for the use of law enforcement and security personnel.
Wrap Technologies serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Tempe, Arizona.
XTO ENERGY: Fredericksburg Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredericksburg Royalty, Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-00154-SPW-TJC (D. Mont., Oct. 26, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Montana and North
Dakota law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of
oil-and-gas royalties.
Montana statute requires operators like XTO to pay royalties to
leased mineral owners within 120 days after the initial oil or gas
produced under the lease is marketed and, thereafter, within 60
days after oil is marketed and 90 days after for gas is marketed.
North Dakota statute, on the other hand, requires operators like
XTO to pay royalties to mineral owners, both leased and unleased,
within 150 days of marketing the oil or gas. Both statutes require
operators to pay mineral owners statutory interest when they fail
to meet the said deadlines.
According to the complaint, the Defendant does not automatically
pay mineral owners the interest it owes on untimely royalty
payments. Instead, it has a policy of only paying statutory
interest when mineral owners demand it, despite the fact that
neither Montana nor North Dakota law contains such a demand
requirement.
As a result, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for itself and
all similarly situated mineral owners who received untimely
payments from XTO for which it did not pay the interest required by
both statutes.
Plaintiff Fredericksburg Royalty, Ltd. is a Texas limited
partnership domiciled in San Antonio, Texas.
XTO Energy, Inc. operates as an oil company. The Company acquires,
develops, and explores oil and gas properties, as well as offers
processing, marketing, and transportation services. XTO Energy
serves customers in the United States, Canada, and Argentina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric E. Holm, Esq.
HOLM LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 3094
Billings, MT 59103
Telephone: (406) 252-2900
Facsimile: (406) 794-0802
E-mail: eric@holm-law.com
YIELDSTREET INC: Paguada Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YIELDSTREET INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09254-LGS (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 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 Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied him and all
others similarly situated blind or visually-impaired consumers full
and equal access to its Website. The Defendant's Website,
www.yieldstreet.com, contains access barriers that hinder blind
consumers to fully use and enjoy the products and services offered
by the Defendant to the public. These access barriers include, but
not limited to: (1) features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a
text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately
vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) features fail to
contain proper label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same
title elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links.
As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove these
access barriers to its Website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the
Website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered
to the public through it.
YieldStreet Inc. is an investment company headquartered in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.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 ***