/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 227 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Bocek Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS 3M COMPANY: Brown Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS 3M COMPANY: Carthel Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS 3M COMPANY: Johnson Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS A&P RESTAURANT: Emeterio Seeks FLSA Class Status ALACHUA, FL: Profit Seeks to Certify Class of Pre-Trial Detainees ALLSTATE FIRE: Louise Case Alleges Breach of Contract ANTSUL-BWW: Perez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Tipped Employees APPLE INC: Custodero Sues Over Illegal Casino-Style Machine Games ARIZONA TILE: Mariscal Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ASIA PACIFIC: Faces Monegro Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation AT&T CORP: Mosley-Lovings Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 5th Cir. B&M MANAGEMENT: Greenlaw Seeks OT Pay for Maintenance Staff BAIRD DRYWALL: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Denied in Britt Suit BANK OF NEW YORK: McLane Sues Over Foreclosure Redemption Process BARRY SIEGEL: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Settlement Class BLUE DIAMOND: Almond Breeze Brand Contains Fake Vanilla, Suit Says BLUE DIAMOND: Almond Breeze Contains Fake Vanilla, Farve Claims BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Cars Have Battery Systems Defect, Kavon Says BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Kavon Sues Over Defective Car Battery BMW: Spanier Files Securities Suit over ADR Price Drop BONDED FILTER: Waterman Labor Suit Seeks OT Pay for Technicians BRINKER INT'L: Faces Patti TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Text Messaging C&J WELL: Faces Points Employment Suit in Calif. Superior Court CAPITOL WATERTOWN: Bruske Suit Seeks Class Certification CAREPARTNERS: Law Firms Commence Privacy Breach Class Action CAREY LIMOUSINE: Misclassifies Drivers, Vega Suit Says CARNIVAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Archer Suit CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces Ortiz FDCA Suit in New Jersey CITIMORTGAGE INC: Morton Sues Over Foreclosure Redemption Process COLEMAN CO: Zachmann Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Ice Coolers COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says COLIN LEMAHIEU: Class Status Bid in Fabian Action Withdrawn CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Park Place Sues over COVID-19 Losses COVETRUS INC: Indiana Electrical Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Wittbecker Sues Over Meal & Rest Periods CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Cadena FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes DENVER, CO: Homeless Out Loud Seeks Class Status DIRECT LISTINGS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads DIRECTAPPS INC: Faces Suttles Suit Over Illegal Background Check DISNEY DTC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Tenzer-Fuchs Says DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lewis Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes DREXLER CONSTRUCTION: Faces Canales Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. EMPEREON MARKETING: Nutt Seeks Overtime Pay for Call Center Staff EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Modification of Class Cert. Order Sought ESTATES LLC: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass EVOLUS INC: Faces Cox Suit Over 37% Drop in Share Price FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Seeks to Decertify Employees Class FANTASY GIRLS: Becker Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers FANTASY GIRLS: Dorio Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers FILTERS FAST: McCreary Suit Alleges Data Breach FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces Floyd Suit Over Price Shares Drop FLIGHT SERVICES: Court Denies Flores-Litman's Class Status Bid FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Burress Sues Over Inaccurate Mortgage Statements GAMA CONSTRUCTION: Braulio Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime GAMESTOP CORP: Faces Redmond Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices GEICO GENERAL: Milligan Appeals Order in Insurance Suit to 2nd Cir GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Massie Suit in Calif. Over Personal Injury GILLIG LLC: Tolentino Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California GILLIG LLC: Tolentino Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California GOM GRAPHICS: So Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Staff GOODVILLE MUTUAL: Mitchell Sues Over Breach of Insurance Policy GOODWIN MANAGEMENT: Dahl Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters GOOGLE LLC: Dinerstein Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit GOOGLE LLC: Montoya Sues Over Money Lost to Online Gambling GOOGLE LLC: Smith Sues over Money Lost to Illegal Gambling HAWTHORNE HEALTHCARE: Daniels Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Nurses HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fonseca Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. HFM INC: Bid to Certify Class in Brigati Suit Denied for Now HFM INC: Brigati Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Golf Club Owners HILTON WORLDWIDE: Germak Says Restaurant Service Fee "Unlawful" HOMELAND SECURITY: Gatore Seeks to Certify FOIA Requesters Class HOMES FOR INDEPENDENT: Bishop Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HORACE MANN: Fails to Pay Medical Expenses, MSP Recovery Claims HOTS INC: Lofton Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Exotic Dancers HOUSE OF INTUITION: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Lucius Suit Says HUDSON FULTON: Faces Hurtado Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HUMANA AT HOME: Class Status Bid in Green Suit Denied HUNGARY: Seeks D.C. Cir. Review of Federal Court Decision HV OCCUPATIONAL: Rapp Suit Seeks to Certify Site Paramedics Class INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Chauhan Sues Over 8% Share Price Drop J & Z FOOD: Faces Lara Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. J.B. PRITZKER: Clark Seeks to Certify Inmates Class JJ'S ASIAN: Cruz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff JPMORGAN CHASE: Mehta Sues Over Common Shares Price Drop KENNETH REES: Gibbs et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class KENNETH REES: Settlement Reached in Banks Litigation KING OF FREIGHT: Wright Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay KROGER CO: Faces Brambila Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices LEXICON CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Shamon Claims LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Watson Suit Seeks to Certify 3 TCPA Classes LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Sues Over Defective Vehicle Parts LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Suit Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bazzini Sues Over 32% Drop in Share Price LPS SERVICES: Alleman Seeks to Certify Security Officers Class M.S.T.A.S. LTD: Duran Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Germal Balks at Unlawful Food Service Fee MATCO TOOLS: Fleming Suit Seeks to Certify Distributors Class MB RYE: Ahn Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices Under FLSA, NYLL MDL 2836: Merck Appeals Ruling in Zetia Ezetimibe Antitrust Suit MOBILE MINI DEALER: Daisy Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 11th Cir. MOBILEIRON INC: Bushansky Challenges Proposed $872M Sale to Ivanti MOBIUS INC: Underpays Caregivers, Brignoni-Kann Suit Claims NATIONAL PACKAGING: Guzman Suit Seeks Class Certification NEOVASC INC: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over 42% Drop in Share Price NHR HUMAN: Hernandez Seeks Collective Status for FLSA Suit NIKE INC: Bunn ADA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California NITIN & PARDEEP: Faces Camara Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. NORVAX LLC: Faces Hossfeld TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls NURIA'S RESTAURANTE: Hernandez Appeals FLSA Suit Order to 2nd Cir. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Claims NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Status OAKLAND, CA: Class of Mobility-Disabled Renters Sought OLE MEXICAN: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Tortillas OP REALTY: Motion for Class Certification Denied in Liu Suit ORGANIC PASTURES: Mislabels Dairy Products as Organic, Suit Says OUT TECH: Voeks Alleges Abusive Debt Collection Practices OXNARD, CA: Alvarez Suit Seeks Class Action Status P & L INNOVATIONS: Chen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages PACIFIC COAST ENERGY: Appeal Filed in Evergreen Capital Suit PACIFIC MARITIME: Andrikos Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses PARTSBASE INC: Court Approves Settlement in Sullivan FLSA Suit PEOPLE'S UNITED: Ianello Balks at Loan Discharge Fee PEPPERIDGE: 'All Butter Loaf Cake' Label Deceptive, Kamara Says PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hogan Suit Pending PIZZA ON STONE: Faces Velazquez Suit Over Tip Misappropriation PORSCHE AG: Fajardo Alleges Emission System Cheating Scheme PORSCHE CARS: Manipulates Emissions Testing Results, Schubert Says PRECIGEN INC: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop PREMIER PLUMBING: Class Certified in Wickles' Labor Suit PREMIUM CONNECTION: Misclassifies Employees, Bonner Suit Claims PREMIUM SEATS: Bryant Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida PRESSED JUICERY: Settlement Classes Sought in Brooks Action PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Stedman Suit Seeks to Certify Insured Class PULSE OPINION: Faces Perrong Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls RAM PAYMENT: Germinario Seeks Class Action Status RASTELLI FOODS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Angeles Claims RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bajjuri Sues Over 7% Drop in Share Price RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Employees REQUIN: Delcid Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages RESQ MANUFACTURING: Grebe Files Labor Suit in Calif. State Court RESTAURANT BRANDS: Warwick Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop RMP LLC: Ginsberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices S.A.S SERVICES: Faces Aroche Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices SABER HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in Bartels Suit SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Austin Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices SENTINEL INSURANCE: Blushark Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims SKANSKA KOCH: Court Okays Filing of Third Amended Complaint SOC LLC: Darrough Employment Suit Removed to District of Nevada SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Schion Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Huntsman Suit Seeks to Certify Class ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Louviere et al Seek to Certify Detainees Class STAR NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Nail Workers, Tian Claims STATE FARM: Alissa's Flowers Appeals Order in Insurance Suit STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Sanitation Workers Class Sought SUNWORKS INC: Bruckner Balks at Merger Deal with Peck Company TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Daniels Balks at Race, Gender Bias TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Goble Files Insurance Suit in S.D. Ohio TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Bruckno Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure UNIFIN INC: Faces Armstrong Suit in Indiana Over Debt Collection UNITED STATES: Judgment in Prisoner Rights Suit Under Appeal UNITED STATES: Milton Appeals Fed. Claims Judgment to Fed. Cir. UNITED STATES: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Onosamba-Ohindo Suit UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Graham Suit Over Ransomware Attack UPS STORE: Schmoll Seeks Shipping Fee Refund for Unsent Packages USAA GENERAL: Fails to Pay Full Car Insurance, Fuller Says USAA LIFE: Appeals Spegele Insurance Case Ruling to Fifth Circuit USAA: Allen et al. File Appeal in Texas Appeals Court VAIL CORP: Kutz Seeks to Certify 401(k) Plan Beneficiaries Class WALGREEN CO: Mejia Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class WARNER MUSIC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New York WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Properly Secure Customer Data, Watt Claims WASTE PRO: Class Certification Denied in Hansen Suit WEGMANS FOOD: Alexander Sues Over Deceptive Vanilla Labeling WESTERN EXPRESS: Bedjan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Redmon Says Dishwashers Can Leak, Damage Property WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class WILLIS TOWERS: Replies to Bid for Writ of Certiorari Due Today WISCONSIN: Class OK'd in Suit over Inmates Serving Life Sentences ZF ACTIVE: Adams Liability Suit Moved From E.D. Mich. to C.D. Cal. ZILLOW GROUP: Court Grants Class Status in Securities Litigation ********* 3M COMPANY: Bocek Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS ------------------------------------------------------ JAMES DESMOND BOCEK v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03708-RMG (D.S.C., October 21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Bocek case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com 3M COMPANY: Brown Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS ------------------------------------------------------ ALLEN PUSHAWN BROWN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03707-RMG (D.S.C., October 21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Brown case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com 3M COMPANY: Carthel Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MYRON CARTHEL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03705-RMG (D.S.C., October 21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Carthel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com 3M COMPANY: Johnson Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS -------------------------------------------------------- PAUL GORDON JOHNSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03761-RMG (D.S.C., October 26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com A&P RESTAURANT: Emeterio Seeks FLSA Class Status ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO EMETERIO, on behalf of himself, Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. A & P RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a REMEDY DINER, MODERN HOSPITALITY GROUP CORP. d/b/a JAX INN DINER, ANASTASIOS GIANNOPOULOS, and PETER GIANNOPOULOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00970-JMF (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 7, 2021, for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the FLSA claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)1 on behalf of Covered Employees: "all current and former non-exempt employees (including line cooks, cooks, food preparers, stock persons, counterpersons, porters, dishwashers, food runners, delivery persons, busboys, and servers), employed by Defendants within the last six years"; 2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; 3. granting approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 4. granting approval of the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be sent directly to the Plaintiff's counsel; 5. directing production in Excel format of names, Social Security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees within 10 days of Court approval of conditional certification; 6. posting of the notice, along with the consent forms in each of Defendants' places of business where Covered Employees are employed; and 7. equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations until such time that Plaintiff is able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a line cook at Remedy Diner. He was employed from January 2010 to June 2019. He suffered significant wage and hour violations. He also personally observed other workers employed by the Defendants suffering from the same policies. Specifically, he and all other non-exempt employees suffered from the Defendants' policy of failing to pay proper wages for all hours worked, including the proper overtime thereof, due to the Defendants' improper time-shaving and rounding policies, in violation of the FLSA, the complaint says. Th Defendants collectively own and operate the two restaurants in New York City: Remedy Diner and Jax Inn Diner. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kxbb1d at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class are: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ALACHUA, FL: Profit Seeks to Certify Class of Pre-Trial Detainees ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raymond A. Profit v. Michelle Hart, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00246-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all pre-trial detainees that are or will be incarcerated at the Alachua County Jail desiring yo carry-out , at a bare minimal, the dietary laws of their religions." The Plaintiff contends there are about 700 inmates incarcerated at the Alachua County Jail. He adds that there are Jewish, Muslims, and Christian inmates that are denied freedom to practice their religion due to the policies of the jail. Alachua County is a county located in the north central portion of the U.S. state of Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3efmJUJ at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] ALLSTATE FIRE: Louise Case Alleges Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Louise Case, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00834-MWM (S.D. Ohio, November 2, 2020). The lawsuit alleges breach of insurance contract. The case is assigned to Judge Matthew W. McFarland. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin C. Hulick, Esq. Stuart E. Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: khulick@spanglaw.com sscott@spanglaw.com ANTSUL-BWW: Perez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Tipped Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ANTSUL-BWW IV LLC, ANTSUL GROUP LLC, ANTSUL GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, STEPHEN SULLIVAN, SR. and STEPHEN SULLIVAN JR., Case No. 521007/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Oct. 28, 2020), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers -- all current and former front-of-house tipped employees paid under full minimum wage (Tipped Employees) -- who work or worked at the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant located at 1447 Richmond Ave., Staten Island, New York 10314 during the period commencing March 21, 2013 through June 3, 2019. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants applied a tip credit to Tipped Employees' wages and paid Tipped Employees a reduced minimum wage rate. He adds the Defendants, however, did not satisfy the requirements under the New York Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act by which it could take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Employees. Ms. Perez was employed by the Defendants as a bartender -- a Tipped Employee -- from January 2013 through August 2019 in New York. Antsul is part of the fast-food & quick-service restaurants industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 The Defendants are represented by: Adam E. Collyer, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 77 Water Street, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 783-1723 E-mail: Adam. Collyer@lewisbrisbois.com APPLE INC: Custodero Sues Over Illegal Casino-Style Machine Games ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK CUSTODERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-01320-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y., October 22, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 5-421 of the New York General Obligations Law. 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 one of these casino-style gambling games. Prior to March of 2019, he downloaded Cash Frenzy. During that month, he began purchasing coins through the app so he could continue to play for a chance to win free coins that would enable him to enjoy the game for a longer period of time. In the three months prior to the filing of the complaint, he paid $2,085.40 to Apple for the privilege of continuing to play the illegal gambling game. 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: Leonard F. Lesser, Esq. SIMON LESSER PC 355 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 599-5455 Facsimile: (212) 599-5459 - and - D. Frank Davis, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. Dargan M. Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP The Bradshaw House 2154 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 ARIZONA TILE: Mariscal Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled EDGAR MARISCAL, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ARIZONA TILE, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01160477-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 26, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-02071-JLS-KES to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest periods premiums, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid final wages, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair competition. Arizona Tile, L.L.C. wholesales construction materials. The Company offers granite, marble, limestone, travertine, slate and onyx slabs and tile to commercial and residential sectors.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Andrew B. Levin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com aaron.cole@ogletree.com andrew.levin@ogletree.com ASIA PACIFIC: Faces Monegro Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asia Pacific Grocers LLC. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Asia Pacific Grocers LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08963-VSB (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 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. Asia Pacific Grocers LLC is a retail store company featuring a wide variety of consumer Asian food products.[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 AT&T CORP: Mosley-Lovings Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tammy Mosley-Lovings filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Tammy Mosley-Lovings v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-1145, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' failure to pay for all time worked by Plaintiffs and the putative class, depriving these employees of their earned straight time and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Tammy Mosley-Lovings v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No. 20-11119, in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Tammy Mosley-Lovings, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq. BRAZIEL DIXON, L.L.P. 1910 Pacific Avenue Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749 1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com Defendant-Appellee AT&T Services, Incorporated is represented by: Karl G. Nelson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 698-3203 Facsimile: (214) 571-2945 E-mail: knelson@gibsondunn.com B&M MANAGEMENT: Greenlaw Seeks OT Pay for Maintenance Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- DIETRICK GREENLAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. B & M MANAGEMENT COMPANY OF ALABAMA, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01286-DPM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 28, 2020), is a collective action against the Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA. The Plaintiff contends that he was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid Maintenance Worker from October 2016 to October 2020. He worked at Defendant's property in Little Rock. The Defendant also employed other Maintenance Workers. The Defendant manages properties throughout the southern United States, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Tess Bradford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com tess@sanfordlawfirm.com BAIRD DRYWALL: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Denied in Britt Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BRITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BAIRD DRYWALL & ACOUSTIC, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00882-EKD-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification on behalf of: "all past and present laborers of the Defendant Baird Drywall & Acoustic, Inc. who, at any time from December 30, 2016 through the present, were hired through labor brokers or sub-subcontractors to provide framing, drywall, ceiling, or similar construction labor for the benefit of the Defendant"; 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint with respect to the claims of Joseph Britt and granting in all other respects; 3. dismissing with prejudice Britt's claims; and 4. directing the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that is identical in all respects to the proposed amended complaint, except that the claims of Joseph Britt are deleted; 5. directing the clerk to send a copy of this order to all counsel of record. The Court said, "Britt is not a proper party to this action, and as a result, he is not similarly situated to any opt-in plaintiff. Britt cannot cure this issue by filing an opt-in pursuant to section 256(b). For these reasons, the court is constrained to deny the motion for collective certification." This action alleges that Baird violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying overtime and/or minimum wage to its workers. Baird is a sub-contractor that works with general contractors on specific construction projects, including large ongoing projects at Virginia Tech, Liberty University, Radford University, Lynchburg College, Roanoke College, Washington & Lee University, Virginia Military Institute, and Carilion Hospital in Roanoke. Baird generally provides framing, drywall, and similar construction work. The named plaintiff, Joseph Britt, was hired as a laborer for Baird. A copy of the Court's Order denying motion for conditional class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oAOdZA at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF NEW YORK: McLane Sues Over Foreclosure Redemption Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD MCLANE, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 2:20-cv-02554-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan., November 6, 2020) is a class action on behalf of individuals and entities seeking redress for the Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive practices involving the manner in which it purchases and then seeks reimbursement for hazard insurance involving homes and residences that are the subject of foreclosure proceedings, and which are ultimately "redeemed" by the homeowners or their assignees. The complaint contends that through a deceptive pattern and practice going back years, the Defendant has charged individuals who redeem their homes after foreclosure sales for a full year of hazard insurance, even though just a small fraction of the insurance is typically used, and even though insurance companies will typically reimburse a purchaser for unused insurance. The Defendant is unjustly enriching itself and misleading persons who are at their most financially vulnerable -- homeowners including the Plaintiff who just lost their homes in foreclosure proceedings and are trying to struggle back and recover their homes. The Bank of New York Mellon operates as an investment company. The Company provides investment and wealth management, foreign exchange, securities finance, capital markets, brokerage, asset, and estate planning services. The Bank of New York Mellon serves advisors, banks, and consultants worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Michael R. Owens, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP Nichols Road, Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: wilders@stuevesiegel.com owens@stuevesiegel.com - and - Paul D. Snyder, Esq. Karen E. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC 10995 Lowell Ave, Ste 710 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 685-3900 E-mail: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com BARRY SIEGEL: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BARRY I. SIEGEL a/k/a BARRY I. SIEGEL ATTORNEY AT LAW; RETAIL RECOVERY SERVICE OF NJ, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv-14959-MF (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a proposed Class for settlement purposes; 2. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement; 3. directing notice to the Class; and 4. setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and a hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). The Plaintiff asserted a claim pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") against the Defendants in connection with collection letters Siegel sent to the Plaintiff concerning a debt owned by Retail Recovery Service, which the Plaintiff alleges violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692 et seq. The Defendants deny all of these factual allegations, the complaint says. A copy of the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HGSHgz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Wolf, Esq. Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com Attorney for the Defendant Barry I. Siegel is: Jeffrey Leonard, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 800 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 792 8740 Facsimile: (973) 577 6261 Jeffrey.Leonard@lewisbrisbois.com Attorney for the Defendant Retail Recovery Service of NJ, Inc., is: Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI Three Logan Square, 1717 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 717-4022 E-mail: lbartel@grsm.com BLUE DIAMOND: Almond Breeze Brand Contains Fake Vanilla, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Bradshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 1:20-cv-05125 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendant, in violation of the Food and Drug Administration regulations, misleads consumers by representing that its Almond Breeze products contain "Vanilla" when in fact it contains fake, artificial vanilla which provides the vanilla taste, and the amount of real vanilla, if any, is trace or de minimis. Blue Diamond Growers manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells blends of almond milk and coconut milk under the Almond Breeze brand purporting to be flavored only with vanilla, as indicated on the front label and ingredient list. The Product is available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and is sold in cartons of 32 OZ and 64 OZ. The relevant front label representations include "Unsweetened," "Vanilla," "Almond Breeze," "Almond Coconut Blend," "almondmilk coconutmilk blend" and pictures of almonds and coconuts. Vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews and Vanilla tahitenis Moore) comes from an orchid plant that originated in Mexico where it was first cultivated. The vanilla orchid produces a fruit pod, the vanilla bean, which is the raw material for true vanilla flavorings. The Plaintiff purchased the Product on numerous occasions during 2019, including several times during the spring and summer of 2019, at stores including ShopRite, 985 Richmond Ave, Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff was deceived by and relied upon the Product's deceptive labeling. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product in the absence of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com BLUE DIAMOND: Almond Breeze Contains Fake Vanilla, Farve Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA FARVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 3:20-cv-07570 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2020), alleges that Defendant indicated on the front label and ingredient list of its Almond Breeze brand that the product is flavored with vanilla. However, the statements are neither true nor accurate, and Defendant is misleading its consumers in violation of the Food and Drug Administration regulations, the lawsuit contends. Blue Diamond Growers manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells blends of almond milk and coconut milk under the Almond Breeze brand purporting to be flavored only with vanilla. The Product is available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and is sold in cartons of 32 OZ and 64 OZ. The relevant front label representations include "Unsweetened," "Vanilla," "Almond Breeze," "Almond Coconut Blend," "almondmilk coconutmilk blend" and pictures of almonds and coconuts. The representation as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product contains fake, artificial vanilla which provides the vanilla taste, and the amount of real vanilla, if any, is trace or de minimis, the Plaintiff contends. Vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews and Vanilla tahitenis Moore) comes from an orchid plant that originated in Mexico where it was first cultivated. The vanilla orchid produces a fruit pod, the vanilla bean, which is the raw material for true vanilla flavorings. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at locations including Safeway, 699 Lewelling Blvd., she would not have purchased or paid more for Product had she realized that much, if not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant sources, says the complaint. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product in the absence of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions.[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 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Cars Have Battery Systems Defect, Kavon Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM KAVON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-09775 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased in California certain vehicles equipped with uniform and uniformly defective battery systems designed, manufactured, distributed, warranted, marketed, and sold or leased by the Defendant. On September 15, 2020, the Plaintiff entered a lease agreement for a new 2021 BMW X5 ("BMW X5"), manufactured by Manufacturer, Vehicle Identification No. 5UXTA6C04M9D35662. This action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with BMW's design, manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles' battery systems have a serious design defect that causes the battery system to be unreasonably dangerous, due to debris in the manufacturing process of the Class Vehicles. As a result, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class have been cautioned not to charge the battery under any circumstances, nor should they use the vehicle in "sport" mode. There is no recall for the defect, nor is there any fix offered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is an individual who purchased subject vehicle in the State of California. The Defendant is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. The Defendant is also in the business of marketing, supplying and selling written warranties to the public at large through a system of authorized dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Kavon Sues Over Defective Car Battery ----------------------------------------------------------- ADAM KAVON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-15475-KM-ESK (D.N.J., November 2, 2020) arises from the Defendant's conduct of manufacturing, distributing, warranting, marketing, and selling or leasing vehicles equipped with uniform and uniformly defective battery systems. On or about September 15, 2020, the Plaintiff entered a lease agreement for a new 2021 BMW X5, manufactured by Manufacturer, Vehicle Identification No. 5UXTA6C04M9D35662 in the State of California. According to the complaint, the Class vehicles' battery systems have a serious manufacturing defect that causes the battery system to be unreasonably dangerous, due to debris in the manufacturing process of the vehicles. As a result, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class have been cautioned not to charge the battery under any circumstances, nor should they use the vehicle in "sport" mode. The complaint asserts that there is no recall for the manufacturing defect, nor is there any fix offered by the Defendant. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed and suffered actual damages, in that the Class vehicles have manifested, and continue to manifest, the battery system defect, and the Defendant has not provided a permanent remedy for the defect, the suit says. BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles. The Company offers vehicle accessories and interior and exterior parts, apparel and accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers vehicle financing and leasing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP A.P.C. 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 259-4800 E-mail: ross@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com BMW: Spanier Files Securities Suit over ADR Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ MARK SPANIER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, BMW (US) HOLDING CORP., OLIVER ZIPSE, HARALD KRUGER, NORBERT REITHOFER, BERNHARD KUHNT, NICOLAS PETER, and LUDWIG WILLISCH, Case No. 2:20-cv-15081-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Oct. 27, 2020), is a class action complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of the persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded BMW securities from November 3, 2015 through September 24, 2020, inclusive (the Class Period). The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). On November 3, 2015, the Company released its quarterly results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2015 (3Q15 Financials). The 3Q15 Financials stated that automobile sales in the US continued their upward trend from the first half of the year and increased by 5%. On December 23, 2019, while the market was open, the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC was probing BMW's sales practices. On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per American Depositary Receipt (ADR), or nearly 6.87%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019, damaging investors. The same day, BAMXF ADRs fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60. On September 24, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settlement agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, BMW US "used its demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and meet internal targets, resulting in demonstrator and loaner vehicles accounting for over one quarter of BMW [US]'s reported retail sales in this period." On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2.2%, to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020, damaging investors. The same day, BAMXF ADRs fell $2.54, or about 3.5%, to close at $68.91. The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's ADRs, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Defendant BMW, together with its subsidiaries, purports to develop, manufacture, and sell automobiles and motorcycles, and spare parts and accessories worldwide. BMW is incorporated in Germany and with headquarters in Munich, Germany. The Company's ADRs trade over-the-counter on the OTC under the ticker symbols "BMWYY" and "BAMXF." The Individual Defendants are Compamy's officers and directors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BONDED FILTER: Waterman Labor Suit Seeks OT Pay for Technicians --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WATERMAN on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. BONDED FILTER CO., LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-09010 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of th Plaintiff and on behalf of other similarly situated, current and former technicians who worked at BFC and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that they are entitled to unpaid overtime wages from BFC for their work, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that BFC paid him and its other technicians in a straightforward manner. He and the other technicians, who were not exempt from laws requiring the payment of overtime, received an hourly wage for the hours they worked, which included the time they spent driving from their homes to and from their assignments, up to 40 hours weekly and one and one-half times that wage for hours that exceeded 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was employed by BFC as a technician from September 2015 to June 2020. He was based at his residence in Kingston, New York. BFC provides preventative commercial HVAC maintenance services in New York and throughout the United States. To provide these services, BFC employs technicians in New York and in other states. These technicians spend their days traveling from assignment to assignment and performing maintenance at big box stores and other commercial establishments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 10 th Floor New York NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 BRINKER INT'L: Faces Patti TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Text Messaging ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PATTI individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a CHILI'S BAR AND GRILL, Case No. CACE-20-017897 (Fla. Cir. Broward Cty., Oct. 27, 2020), is a putative class action arising from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its clothing sales company, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging with no regard for consumers' privacy rights. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJBLaw 1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com Telephone: 786.496.4469 - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com C&J WELL: Faces Points Employment Suit in Calif. Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&J Well Services, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Joshua Points and Jesse Hernandez, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. C&J Well Services, Inc., a corporation, and Basic Energy Services LP, a Limited Partnership, Case No. BCV-20-102483 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., October 22, 2020). The case type is stated as "other employment - civil unlimited". A case management conference is set for April 26, 2021 before Judge Thomas S. Clark. C&J Well Services is a provider of well construction, well completions and well services to the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com CAPITOL WATERTOWN: Bruske Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryea Bruske and Tamsyn Bruske, On behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Capitol Watertown Sprechers, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00851-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying Ryea Bruske as the class representative of the following two opt-out subclasses: (a) "all Tipped Employees of Sprecher Pub and Restaurants for whom the Defendants claimed a tip credit against the minimum wages owed to them"; and (b) "all Tipped Employees of Sprecher Pub and Restaurants for whom during one or more workweeks the Defendants claimed a tip credit, and who either purchased or had a deduction made from their cash wages for uniforms"; 2. granting their motion for class certification; and 3. granting to them such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34DWfsC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414 271-4500 Facsimile: 414 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com CAREPARTNERS: Law Firms Commence Privacy Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Waddell Phillips PC, Schneider Law Firm PC, and Howie Sacks & Henry LLP have commenced a proposed class action on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians whose personal information was compromised in the 2018 CarePartners privacy breach. CarePartners has an estimated 237,000 patients across Ontario, and is a home healthcare service provider partner of the Local Health Integration Network provincial health authorities. On June 18, 2018, CarePartners announced that it had been subject to a hack and privacy breach involving employee and patient information. Subsequently, the cyber attackers who claimed responsibility for the hack announced that they had been able to steal virtually all of the data on CarePartners' servers, including full employee records and medical files for CarePartners patients. They claimed that CarePartners was utilizing vulnerable software that had not been updated in years, and had failed to encrypt any of the data on their servers. CarePartners did not notify its patients about the breach until after a national news broadcast revealed that the hackers had provided reporters with stolen copies of private health records for thousands of CarePartners' patients. Cyber attacks on healthcare providers have become increasingly common. The need to be hyper-vigilant and to ensure that security measures are current is the expected standard. "That none of the data extracted by the cyber attackers was encrypted demonstrates just how unprepared CarePartners was to meet the bare minimum of cyber security standards. Consistently updated information protection tools, including strong encryption, are essential in today's rapidly evolving technological world," said Cary Schneider, a founding partner at Schneider Law Firm PC and cyber breach specialist. "Personal health information is the most sensitive type of personal information, and corporations that store personal health information must meet correspondingly high privacy protection standards. CarePartners failed to do that, and its patients and employees paid the price," says Paul Miller, a partner at Howie Sacks & Henry LLP who specializes in class actions and mass torts. The class action team is being led by Margaret Waddell, founding partner of Waddell Phillips PC, who is recognized by multiple lawyer ranking agencies as a leader in plaintiff-side class actions, and has acted as class counsel on a number of prominent cases. Waddell says, "CarePartners' lack of transparency regarding the breach and the efforts it has made to retrieve and protect its clients' most sensitive health information is egregious. Clients have a right to know what has happened to their health records, and why they were not properly protected." Further information regarding the proposed class action will be posted as it becomes available at https://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/carepartners-class-action. Contact: Tina Q Yang Waddell Phillips PC (647) 847-2294 tina@waddellphillips.ca [GN] CAREY LIMOUSINE: Misclassifies Drivers, Vega Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ Nikko Carlos Vega, v. Carey Limousine NY, Inc.; Carey International, Inc.; Gary L. Kessler; Sally A. Snead; Ramon R. Kamel, Mitchell Lahr and John Does No. 1 10, Case No. 1:20-cv-05121 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of other persons similarly situated working for the Defendants for unpaid wages, breach of contract damages, and other relief. The Plaintiff and similar drivers worked for Carey as drivers throughout the New York City area. Throughout the relevant time period, Carey has controlled the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's employment, and the employment of similarly situated drivers, by directing which customers the drivers should pick up, at what time, and at what location; and determining the work schedule of Plaintiff and the other drivers by coercing drivers to work specified days (including weekends) and nights, and for specified lengths of time. The lawsuit seeks payment of all unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, together with liquidated damages and interest, and the recovery of all unlawful deductions that Carey has taken from the wages of the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. The Plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff contends that by willfully and unlawfully misclassifying its drivers as "independent contractors", Carey has denied them benefits that the law affords to employees. In particular, Carey has failed to reimburse or indemnify drivers for employment-related expenses and losses; taken wrongful deductions from drivers' wages; coerced drivers to purchase necessary services and items; failed to pay drivers' actual hours works, as required by federal and New York Law. Upon information and belief, this misclassification policy has been in effect since before the relevant state and federal statutory periods. Carey provide luxury car and limousine transportation services, mainly in the New York City metropolitan area. Carey receives its entire income and revenue through providing transportation services, primarily through the proposed class of workers who drive cars on its behalf.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com CARNIVAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Archer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Archer, et al., v. Carnival Corporation and Carnival PLC, et al., Case No.2:20-cv-04203-RGK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The Plaintiffs were passengers aboard the Grand Princess when it departed from San Francisco on February 21, 2020 bound for Hawaii. Before February 21, the Grand Princess had been on a roundtrip cruise from San Francisco to Mexico. The Mexico cruise departed on February 11 and was scheduled to return to San Francisco on February 21. At that time, the plan was for the Grand Princess to off-load all but 62 passengers from the Mexico cruise and then onboard the passengers for the Hawaii cruise. The problem, however, was that some of the passengers on the Mexico cruise were infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19. This led to an outbreak on the Grand Princess which resulted in numerous individuals contracting COVID-19. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on April 8, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 2, 2020, a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on August 14, 2020, and a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) on October 2, 2020. The TAC 1s brought against the Defendants Carnival Corporation, Carnival PLC, and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. The TAC asserts four claims: (1) negligence; (2) gross negligence; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. All of the Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the COVID-19 outbreak on the Grand Princess -- a cruise ship operated by Princess Cruises. The Court has already found that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is barred by the Passage Contract. Thus, the Court does not need to address whether the Plaintiffs satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) or 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, or whether certification under Rule 23(c)(4) would be appropriate, the Court says. A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TkKv81 at no extra charge.[CC] CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces Ortiz FDCA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield, LLC, et al. The case is styled as ANGEL ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 through 25, Case No. 1:20-cv-14829-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., October 22, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to Judge Renee Marie Bumb. Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. CHUL SKY KAPLAN LAW 280 Prospect Ave. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 803-6611 Facsimile: (877) 827-3394 E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com CITIMORTGAGE INC: Morton Sues Over Foreclosure Redemption Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIETH MORTON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02556-DDC-KGG (D. Kan., November 6, 2020) is a class action on behalf of individuals and entities seeking redress for CitiMortgage's fraudulent and deceptive practices involving the manner in which it purchases and then seeks reimbursement for hazard insurance involving homes and residences that are the subject of foreclosure proceedings, and which are ultimately "redeemed" by the homeowners or their assignees, including the Plaintiff. The complaint contends that through a deceptive pattern and practice going back years, the Defendant has charged individuals who redeem their homes after foreclosure sales for a full year of hazard insurance, even though just a small fraction of the insurance is typically used, and even though insurance companies will typically reimburse a purchaser for unused insurance. The Defendant is unjustly enriching itself and misleading persons who are at their most financially vulnerable -- homeowners who just lost their homes in foreclosure proceedings and are trying to struggle back and recover their homes. CitiMortgage Inc. of Missouri provides refinancing and investment products. The Company sells mortgage through retail, online, and correspondent channels and offers home mortgage refinance loan, bad credit debt consolidation loans, and online mortgage information. CitiMortgage serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. Michael R. Owens, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP Nichols Road, Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: wilders@stuevesiegel.com owens@stuevesiegel.com - and - Paul D. Snyder, Esq. Karen E. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC 10995 Lowell Ave, Ste 710 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 685-3900 E-mail: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com COLEMAN CO: Zachmann Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Ice Coolers ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ZACHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COLEMAN COMPANY INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-09146-VB (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act under New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of engaging in a deceptive business practice in marketing, advertising and promotion of a line of ice coolers labeled "1 Day" through "7 Days" that has caused injury to him and other similarly situated consumers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has purchased the Defendant's "5 Day Ice" cooler expecting the product to perform as described by its label. However, the product did not perform as represented on the labeling and advertising, which were designed to encourage consumers to purchase the products and misled reasonable consumers into purchasing the products. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the product if he had known the truth about the misrepresentations and omissions. The Coleman Company, Inc. manufactures, markets and sells ice coolers under the "Coleman" brand name throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Tel: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and – James Chung, Esq. 136 39th Ave #40 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 461-8808 E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-09216 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 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 their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Romero alleges that during his visits to the Website, hum.colgate.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 contends 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. Colgate-Palmolive Company is a smart electronic toothbrush company, and 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 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal COLIN LEMAHIEU: Class Status Bid in Fabian Action Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FABIAN, v. COLIN LEMAHIEU, ET.AL., Case No. 4:19-cv-00054-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. allowing the Plaintiff Fabian to withdraw without prejudice to remaining a putative class member; 2. withdrawing without prejudice the current pending motion for class certification; 3. allowing Intervenor Alec Otto -- selected by the intervenors and Fabian as the named plaintiff -- to substitute as the plaintiff in lieu of the plaintiff Fabian; and 4. denying the request for leave to file a second amended complaint given the nature of the allegations and its untimeliness relative to the progress of the case. The Court said, "The plaintiff Otto shall file within seven days of this Order a supplement to the complaint to provide new allegations parallel to paragraphs 183 to 196 of the operative complaint setting forth the details of Intervenor Otto's transactions in a manner similar to that of plaintiff Fabian. No other amendments shall be allowed. The Defendants shall answer such supplemental allegations within seven days of the filing of the supplement. by all others is otherwise denied. Within seven days of the filing of the defendants' response, the parties shall jointly file a proposed schedule resetting the deadlines in this matter permitting fact discovery of Otto, as well as the briefing schedule on an anticipated renewed motion for class certification." A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mBnVEv at no extra charge.[CC] CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Park Place Sues over COVID-19 Losses ----------------------------------------------------------- PARK PLACE HOSPITALITY, LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-06403 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendant denied coverage for COVID-19 losses and expenses under its issued commercial property insurance policy to the Plaintiff. Park Place owns and operates a hotel, restaurant, lounge and banquet and meeting facilities in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Park Place's Policy has a policy period of June 1, 2019 to June 19, 2020. The insured property is located at 11600 West Park Place, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Policy provides coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to real property at a location directly caused by a Covered Peril." According to the complaint, beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to incur restoration and extra expenses as well as suspend the business operations at its hotel, restaurant, lounge and banquet and meeting facilities due to the presence of a microbe -- SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. This microbe caused Plaintiff to suffer significant losses and incur significant expenses. The Plaintiff timely filed a claim for its losses and expenses on March 26, 2020. Plaintiff's claim was denied by CNA on June 5, 2020. The Plaintiff sustained direct physical loss of or damage to items of property located at its premises and direct physical loss of and damage to its premises described in the Policy as a result of the presence of COVID-19 particles and/or the COVID-19 Pandemic. Continental Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Cook County. The Defendant issues and sells insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Andrew Szot, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com aszot@millerlawllc.com - and - Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. James M. Terrell, Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com COVETRUS INC: Indiana Electrical Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, IBEW, directly on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of COVETRUS, INC., v. COVETRUS, INC., DEBORAH G. ELLINGER, SANDRA L. HELTON, PHILIP A. LASKAWY, MARK J. MANOFF, EDWARD M. MCNAMARA, STEVEN PALADINO, RAVI SACHDEV, SHARON WIENBAR, SANDRA E. PETERSON, and BENJAMIN WOLIN, Case No. 2020-0923 (Del. Ch., Oct. 28, 2020), is a Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint brought of behalf of the Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders of Covetrus against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the Covetrus board of directors in connection with (a) permitting private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice to vote certain of its shares of common stock in support of the Company's pending preferred stock conversion proposal in clear violation of NASDAQ Listing Rules; and (b) failing to disclose all material information to stockholders regarding such proposal. The Plaintiff seeks an order preventing the Company from convening the November 17, 2020 stockholder vote on the Second Conversion unless and until (a) the Previously Converted Shares are stripped of their ability to vote in favor of the Second Conversion; and (b) the Covetrus Board discloses all material information to the Company's public stockholders to allow them to make an informed decision regarding whether to approve the Second Conversion. The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Covetrus and has owned Covetrus common stock. Covetrus is a global animal-health technology and services company dedicated to empowering veterinary practice partners to drive improved health and financial outcomes. The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - Michael J. Barry, Esq. John C. Kairis, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Wittbecker Sues Over Meal & Rest Periods ------------------------------------------------------------ ROY WITTBECKER, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV371987 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty, Oct. 23, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have failed to: -- provide meal and rest periods or pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked; and -- pay overtime wages at the correct rate in violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from March 6, 2019 until July 8, 2019. Cupertino is a privately owned electrical engineering and construction company headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. Nolan Dilts, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw. com nolan@setarehlaw.com CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Cadena FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARIENE CADENA and ANDREW GONZALES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CUSTOMER CONNEXX LLC; ARCA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,, Case No. 2:18-cv-00233-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying these Classes: Nevada Class: "all hourly paid call center employees employed by the Defendants in the state of Nevada at any time during the alleged relevant time period"; and Wages Due And Owing Class: "all members of the NEVADA CLASS who are former employees." This is an employment wage and hour class action based upon the Defendants alleged failure to pay its non-exempt employees' wages for all the work completed off the clock and/or improperly rounded off their time for pay purposes in violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants maintain and enforce two core policies that forced non-exempt hourly call center employees to perform work off-the-clock before and after their shifts: (1) the Defendants' Timekeeping Policy and (2) the Defendants' Rounding Policy. Customer Connexx is a human-focused, technology-driven organization working to connect customers with solutions. ARCA offers a full array of appliance recycling and change-out services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34AmgZJ at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative class are: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NE 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com joshh@thiermanbuck.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul T. Trimmer, Esq. Veronica T. Von Grabow, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, NV 89101 E-mail: trimmerp@jacksonlewis.com veronica.vongrabow@jacksonlewis.com DENVER, CO: Homeless Out Loud Seeks Class Status ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENVER HOMELESS OUT LOUD, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02985-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting provisional certification of these classes of individuals: 1. All involuntarily unhoused individuals living in Denver, Colorado during the COVID-19 pandemic; and 2. All persons in the City and County of Denver whose personal belongings may in the future be taken or destroyed without due process on account of Denver's, and/or its officials' and representatives', decision to clear away an encampment of unhoused person(s) by seizing and/or discarding the property found there without adequate notice. These classes easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Indeed, the record evidence demonstrate common and continuing violation of the Constitution impact hundreds of members of the proposed class in exactly the same way: (1) all are exposed to a significantly increased risk contracting COVID-19, (2) all have their property taken and destroyed, and (3) all have their property seized without notice, says the complaint. The Defendants include are MAYOR MICHAEL HANCOCK, in his individual capacity; GOVERNOR JARED POLIS, in his individual and official capacities; BOB MCDONALD, in his individual capacity; MURPHY ROBINSON, in his individual and official capacities; KRISTIN BRONSON, in her individual and official capacities; ENVIRONMENTAL HAZMAT SERVICES; LIEUTENANT MIKE CODY, in his individual capacity; SERGEANT ANTHONY MARTINEZ, in his individual capacity; SERGEANT. BRIAN CONOVER, in his individual capacity; CORPORAL MARK MOORE, in his individual capacity; OFFICER THANARAT PHUVHAPAISALKIJ, in his individual capacity; OFFICER ROP MONTHATHONG, in his individual capacity; OFFICER CHRIS RANDALL, in his individual capacity; OFFICER DAVID HUNTER, in his individual capacity; OFFICER TOBY WILSON, in his individual capacity; OFFICER JON UDLAND, in his individual capacity; OFFICER DAVID MARTINEZ, in his individual capacity; OFFICER WALLACE SAM, in his individual capacity; OFFICER JAMES HARVEY, in his individual capacity; OFFICERS DARREN ULRICH, in his individual capacity; OFFICER MALLORY LUTKIN, in her individual capacity; CORPORAL ANDREW GASPAROVIC, in his individual capacity; TROOPER J.P. BURT, in her/his individual capacity; TROOPER JOSEPH DIRNBERGER, in his individual capacity; TROOPER DARCE WEIL, in her individual capacity; TROOPER WILLIAM CALDWELL, in his individual capacity; TROOPER KEVIN RAE, in his individual capacity; TROOPER COLIN DAUGHERTY, in his individual capacity; TROOPER VICTOR SARGENTI, in his individual capacity; TROOPER DAVID DINKEL, in his individual capacity; TROOPER DOUG KLINE, in his individual capacity; TROOPER GREGORY DAVEY, in his individual capacity; TROOPER JEREMY HARRINGTON, in his individual capacity; TROOPER CHRISTOPHER GONZALES, in his individual capacity; TROOPER RUSTY SANCHEZ, in his individual capacity; TROOPER PATRICK WILLIAMS, in his individual capacity; TROOPER JACOB CLEVELAND, in his individual capacity; TROOPER CRYSTAL CRENSHAW, in her individual capacity; TROOPER RYAN A. VOSS, in his individual capacity; TROOPER UMAIR CHEEMA, in his individual capacity; TROOPER NATHAN HARDY, in his individual capacity; TROOPER GEOFFREY KEELING, in his individual capacity; TROOPER HAAS E. PRATT, in his individual capacity; TROOPER NICHOLAS TRUJILLO, in his individual capacity; TROOPER TY SIMCOX, in his individual capacity; TROOPER SEAN MCCALL, in his individual capacity; TROOPER HEIDI JEWETT, in her individual capacity; TROOPER BRANDON NOVY, in his individual capacity; TROOPER KYLE ROSS, in his individual capacity; TROOPER ALEC W. BARKLEY, in his individual capacity; TROOPER BRYAN LARREAU, in his individual capacity; TROOPER THOMAS MAJOR, in his individual capacity; TROOPER JONATHAN STRICKLAND, in his individual capacity; JOHN & JANES BOES 1-75, in their individual capacities; JOHN & JANES DOES 1-75, in their individual capacities; JOHN & JANES FOES 1-75, in their individual capacities; JOHN & JANES JOES 1-75, in their individual capacities; JOHN & JANES LOES 1-75, in their individual capacities; and JOHN & JANES MOES 1-75, in their individual capacities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37uX7BR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Lane, Esq. Darold W. Killmer, Esq. Andy McNulty, Esq. Reid Allison, Esq. KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP 1543 Champa St. Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 571-1000 Facsimile: (303) 571-1001 E-mail: dlane@kln-law.com dkillmer@kn-law.com amcnulty@kln-law.com rallison@kln-law.com DIRECT LISTINGS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT LISTINGS, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10005 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed multiple calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around May 2018 in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone number that was registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or around June 4, 2008. The Plaintiff claims that he was harmed by the Defendant's unsolicited calls by causing him to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he had already paid, and invading his privacy. Direct Listings, LLC is an online marketing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com DIRECTAPPS INC: Faces Suttles Suit Over Illegal Background Check ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK SUTTLES, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. DIRECTAPPS, INC., a Delaware corporation; EDGE SOLUTIONS & CONSULTING, INC., a California corporation; DIRECT TECHNOLOGY, a business entity of unknown form; LAUNCH CONSULTING GROUP, business entity of unknown form; AVERRO, business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20077606 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with the disclosure and authorization requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. Additionally, the Defendants' disclosure contained extraneous and superfluous language that does not consist solely of the disclosure as required by the FCRA and/or is not clear and conspicuous. The Defendants provide consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com DISNEY DTC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Tenzer-Fuchs Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DISNEY DTC, LLC, d/b/a disney.family.com, Case No. 2:20-cv-05386 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law after failing to design and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, disney.family.com, the last occurring in October of 2020, she encountered multiple access barriers which effectively denied her the full enjoyment of the goods and services of the Website. She visited the Defendant's Website with the intention of browsing and attempting to purchase Disney memorabilia for herself and her grandchildren. 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 range of features and accommodations, which effectively barred her from being able to make her desired purchase. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, thus seeks a permanent injunction to initiate 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. Disney DTC, LLC, d/b/a disney.family.com, is a retailer of Disney memorabilia. The Company is an online retailer of Disney-themed products, clothing, experiences, and adventures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 E-mail: Jonathan@ShalomLawNY.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lewis Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, et al., v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 15-352-RBW (D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. certifying following classes: The Illegal Hold Class: Each person who: (1) in the period beginning three years before the date of filing of the original complaint in this case and going forward until the case is terminated; (2) was arrested without a warrant and charged with one or more "D.C. Code offenses" but no offenses described in D.C. Code section 23-1322(b)(2), (3), or (4), or D.C. Code section 23-1325; (3) was, after their Initial Appearance in Superior Court of the District of Columbia, detained on a " Gerstein perfection hold" pursuant to D.C. Code section 23- 1322(a); (4) was held more than 48 hours after arrest without a probable cause determination; and (5) was held pursuant to the District's policy or custom of holding Gerstein perfection hold arrestees more than 48 hours from time of arrest without providing a probable cause determination before a neutral magistrate.; and The Illegal Strip Search Class: Each person who: (1) in the period beginning three years before the date of filing of the original complaint in this case and going forward until the case is terminated; (2) was arrested without a warrant and appeared in the Superior Court for an Initial Appearance on "minor" offenses such as "District offenses" and misdemeanors not involving an allegation of drugs, weapons, or violence, and no other offenses; (3) was, after the Initial Appearance in Superior Court of the District of Columbia, detained on a Gerstein perfection hold; (4) was then admitted to the DC Jail though the person could have been held in an area outside the general population of the DC Jail or CTF; and (5) upon entry to the DC Jail, pursuant to the DC Jail's official policy of automatically strip-searching every prisoner who enters the DC Jail, was subjected to a strip search not based on individualized reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they were concealing a weapon or other contraband. b. appointing themselves -- Mary Kenion, Dwayne Howard, Rollie Montgomery, Rodney Hamilton, and Tyrell Barkley as Class Representatives; and c. appointing William Claiborne and Sean R. Day as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37JXQPw at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the classes are: William Claiborne, Esq. WILLIAM CLAIBORNE 717 D Street, N.W., Ste 300 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-824-0700 E-mail: claibornelaw@gmail.com - and - Sean R. Day, Esq. 7474 Greenway Center Dr Ste 150 Greenbelt MD 20770-3524 Telephone: 301 220 2270 E-mail: Sean@DayInCourt.Net DREXLER CONSTRUCTION: Faces Canales Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ OSCAR CANALES, JOSE MENDEZ, and FRANCISCO JUAREZ on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ROBERT DREXLER, DREXLER CONSTRUCTION CORP., DREXLER CORP. and DREXLER LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-05378 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs brought this action against the Defendants for: (i) unpaid wages for overtime work performed, (ii) unpaid spread of hours wages for each day they worked 10 or more hours, (iii) liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, (iv) liquidated damages for failure to furnish a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, (v) attorneys' fees, (vi) interest, and (vii) all costs and disbursements associated with the complaint. Mr. Canales was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker/laborer from about July 2017 to October 2017. Mr. Mendez is employed by the Defendants as a construction worker/laborer from about 2015 to the present. Mr. Juarez is also employed by the Defendants as a construction worker/laborer from about 2016 to the present. Drexler Construction Corp., Drexler Corp. and Drexler Land Development Corp. are construction companies specializing in residential and commercial: blacktop, concrete, pavers, foundations, drainage, stoops, driveways, parking lots, patios, stone veneers, pools, and violation removals.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com EMPEREON MARKETING: Nutt Seeks Overtime Pay for Call Center Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALISHA NUTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EMPEREON MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-01029 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 4, 2020) is a class action complaint arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas common law. The Plaintiff contends that she and the putative Class members, who have worked for Empereon in call centers throughout the United States have not been paid for all hours worked in violation of state and federal law. Since she and the putative Class members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, due to Empereon's unlawful company-wide policies, they were not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, she adds. The Plaintiff worked as a call center employee at the Defendant's Waco, Texas location. Empereon Marketing, LLC provides contact center services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP 302 N. Market Street, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (214) 722-5991 E-mail: tbranham@dobslegal.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Modification of Class Cert. Order Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, ANGELINA MAGANA, NORMA RODRIGUEZ, and DAVID BONFANTI individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a real estate investment trust, ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a partnership, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., EQR-WOODLAND PARK A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 22, 2021, for an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 modifying the existing class certification order. The Plaintiffs will ask the Court to modify the order to: 1. certify a Standard Late Fee Injunctive Relief Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2): "all Equity Residential tenants in California from September 3, 2010 through 75 days before the commencement of trial who were charged and/or paid one or more late fee(s) under Equity Residential's standard late fee provision: 5% of the outstanding balance owed (capped at 5% of the total amount of monthly recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater" 2. appoint Standard Late Fee class member and proposed Plaintiff Shannah Smith as a representative of that class. 3. change the end date of the existing Standard Late Fee Class from October 23, 2017 (the date of class certification) to 75 days before the commencement of trial; 4. appoint Ms. Smith as an additional class representative of that Class; 5. include in both of these Classes and the previously certified Woodland Park Preexisting Lease Class tenants who paid the challenged late fees that the Defendants charged to another tenant living in their unit. 6. approve previously-used notice program for issuing notice to the expanded monetary relief classes under Rule 23(b) (3). On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court to challenge the late fee that the Defendants uniformly assess against their California residential tenants for late payment of rent, contending that the late fee is a liquidated damages provision that violates California Civil Code section 2 1671(d). Thereafter, the Defendants removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 3 1332(d). On October 23, 2017, the Court certified two classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): the Standard Late Fee Class and the Woodland Park Preexisting Lease Class. The Standard Late Fee Class, which the Plaintiffs seek to modify with this motion, is defined as follows: "all Equity Residential tenants in California from September 3, 2010 until the date of class certification who were charged one or more late fee(s) under Equity Residential's standard late fee provision: 5% of the outstanding balance owed (ca[pp]ed at 5% of the total amount of monthly recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to modify class certification order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tiofvv at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Certified Classes are: Jason H. Tarricone, Esq. Margaret McBride, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO 1861 Bay Road East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 326-6440 Facsimile: (866) 688-5204 E-mail: jason@clsepa.org mmcbride@clsepa.org - and - Linda M. Dardarian, Esq. Andrew P. Lee, Esq. Anne P. Bellows, Esq. Katharine L. Fisher, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com alee@gbdhlegal.com abellows@gbdhlegal.com kfisher@gbdhlegal.com - and - Craig Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: craig@nicholaslaw.org alex@nicholaslaw.org ESTATES LLC: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN C. WILLIAMS, et al., v. THE ESTATES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01076-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs Brian C. Williams, Maricol Yunaira Tineo de Leon and Jairo Vensrique ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a National Sherman Act Class defined as: "all persons and entities whose properties were sold through foreclosure proceedings at which a Member of the Estates was the high bidder and at which the Estates placed the bid deposit on their behalf"; 2. certifying a North Carolina Subclass defined as: "all persons and entities whose properties were sold through foreclosure proceedings in North Carolina at which a Member of the Estates was the high bidder and at which the Estates placed the bid deposit on their behalf who have standing to bring North Carolina state law claims"; and 3. appointing JC White Law Group PLLC and Blue LLP as co- Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 18, 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to rig bids at public foreclosure sales in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and North Carolina's common law prohibition against unjust enrichment. The Estates LLC is a company that tracks distressed properties in any given state. A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dVrlim at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Maricol Yunaira Tineo De Leon and Jairo Vensrique Leon Da Costa are: James C. White, Esq. J.C. WHITE LAW GROUP PLLC 100 Europa Drive, Suite 401 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 246-4676 Facsimile: (919) 246-9113 E-mail: jwhite@jcwhitelaw.com - and - Dhamian A. Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP 205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-809 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com EVOLUS INC: Faces Cox Suit Over 37% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- CLINTON COX, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EVOLUS, INC., DAVID MOATAZEDI, RUI AVELAR, and LAUREN SILVERNAIL, Case No. 1:20-cv-09053 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Evolus securities between February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive. 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 rapid influx of revenue, 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 twenty-four months of launch. According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, the Defendants 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 U.S. 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. As a result, 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 per share on July 8, 2020, on unusually high trading volume. Following the news of the International Trade Commission's Initial Final Determination and the subsequent price drop of Evolus' common shares, several securities analysts downgraded Evolus' rating and significantly lowered the Company's price target, 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: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Seeks to Decertify Employees Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMAL STEPHENSON, et al., v. FAMILY SOLUTIONS OF OHIO, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02017-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court for an order to decertify the class conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Court previously granted conditional certification of a class consisting of: "individuals employed by Family Solutions in the QMHS position from September 16, 2016 through September 16, 2019." This lawsuit was filed on September 4, 2018. The Court conditionally certified the Class on September 16, 2019. The Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs are not similarly situated for purposes of their Fair Labor Standards Act claims because: (1) the QMHS position is unique and different for each employee; (2) there exist many material defenses to each proposed class member’s claim; and (3) judicial fairness supports decertification. A copy of the Defendants' motion to decertify class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31XoAbz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Donald G. Slezak, Esq. David A. Campbell, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 1375 E. 9th Street, Suite 2250 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 298-1262 Facsimile: (216) 344-9421 E-mail: david.a.campbell@lewisbrisbois.com donald.slezak@lewisbrisbois.com FANTASY GIRLS: Becker Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLONESHA BECKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAMY KESHMIRI, an individual; JAMY KESHMIRI, an individual; FANTASY GIRLS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability corporation; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00602-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying this matter as a collective action and allowing notice of this action to be sent to: "dancers who have performed at the the Defendants' club Fantasy Girls in the past three years." The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants misclassified them and other dancers as independent contractors when, in fact, the dancers are Defendants' employees under federal law. As a result of this misclassification, they allege that the Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay dancers any wages (minimum or overtime), requiring dancers to pay kickback fees in order to work, and forcing dancers to "tip out" ineligible employees, management and back to the club as well. The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Fantasy Girls, an adult entertainment venue in Reno, Nevada. The club is owned and operated by Fantasy Girls, LLC. On August 24, 2020, Marlonesha Becker brought this action seeking to recover wages owed to her and other dancers who have been classified as independent contractors at Fantasy Girls under the FLSA. Between January 21, 2020, and March 30, 2020, Beverly Flynn, Brooklyn Devenport, Kirsten Discipulo, and Joye Jackson joined this action as opt in plaintiffs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31GqJbG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, 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 - and - David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 E. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: 775-323-1321 Facsimile: 775-323-4082 E-mail: david@omaralaw.net FANTASY GIRLS: Dorio Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN DORIO, an individual; QUIANNA HUNT, an individual; and SARA KELLY, an individual, v. KAMY KESHMIRI, an individual; JAMY KESHMIRI, an individual; FANTASY GIRLS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability corporation; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00482-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying this matter as a collective action and allowing notice of this action to be sent to: "dancers who have performed at the the defendants' club Fantasy Girls in the past three years." The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants misclassified them and other dancers as independent contractors when, in fact, the dancers are Defendants' employees under federal law. As a result of this misclassification, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay dancers any wages (minimum or overtime), requiring dancers to pay kickback fees in order to work, and forcing dancers to "tip out" ineligible employees, management and back to the club as well. The Plaintiffs Karen Dorio, Quianna Hunt, and Sara Kelly worked as exotic dancers at Fantasy Girls, an adult entertainment venue in Reno, Nevada. The club is owned and operated by Fantasy Girls, LLC, Kamy Keshmiri, and Jamy Keshmiri. On August 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to recover wages owed to them and other dancers who have been classified as independent contractors at Fantasy Girls under the FLSA. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3otkmlR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, 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 - and - David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 E. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: 775-323-1321 Facsimile: 775-323-4082 E-mail: david@omaralaw.net FILTERS FAST: McCreary Suit Alleges Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- JENNIFER McCREARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FILTERS FAST LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00595 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 27, 2020), asserts claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") relating to a data breach. On August 25, 2020, the electronic data security company RapidSpike published a blog post entitled "Filter Company Allowed 3.4 Million Customers to Shop on Hacked Site." The blog post stated that "Filters Fast knowingly allowed approximately 3.4 Million customers to shop on their compromised website for over 5 months, in a year-long data breach." Filters Fast customers across the United States have suffered real and imminent harm as a direct consequence of the Defendant's conduct, which includes: (a) refusing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected; (b) refusing to take available steps to prevent the breach from happening; and (c) failing to disclose to its customers the material fact that it did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard customers' personal and financial information; and (d) failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the data breach. According to the complaint, the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff and the proposed Classes as a direct result of the Data Breach include: a. Unauthorized charges on their payment card accounts; b. Theft of their personal and financial information; and c. Costs associated with the detection and prevention of identity theft and unauthorized use of their financial accounts. On July 4, 2020, the Plaintiff claims that she purchased replacement Maytag appliance water filters from Defendant's website, order number XXXX3926. She used one of her credit cards to make this purchase. Subsequent to making this purchase, she received a letter dated August 18, 2020 entitled Notice of Data Breach from the Defendant. The Plaintiff contends that she would not have used her credit card to make purchases from the Filters Fast website -- indeed, she would not have shopped with Filters Fast at all during the period of the data breach -- had Filters Fast disclosed that it lacked adequate computer systems and data security practices to safeguard customers' personal and financial information from theft, and that it was subject to an ongoing data breach at the time she made her purchases. Filters Fast also failed to provide her with timely and accurate notice of the data breach, she adds. FiltersFast.com sells a variety of home filtration products. The company is based in North Carolina, and according to SimilarWeb, the company averages approximately 574,190 website visitors each month.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. David Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces Floyd Suit Over Price Shares Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES FLOYD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP., DENNIS J. GILMORE, AND MARK E. SEATON, Case No. 2:20-cv-09781 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2020), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of First American from February 17, 2017 through October 22, 2020, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable 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. On February 17, 2017, when First American filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), announcing the Company's financial and operating results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the "2016 10-K"). The 2016 10-K was signed by the Defendants Gilmore and Seaton. On October 22, 2020, First American filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing that the Company had received a Wells Notice regarding its massive security breach, stating, in pertinent part: "Currently, governmental agencies are examining or investigating certain of the Company's operations. These exams and investigations include two investigations initiated in connection with the information security incident that occurred during the second quarter of 2019, one being conducted by the SEC enforcement staff and the other by the New York Department of Financial Services." On this news the price of First American shares fell approximately $4.83 per share, or 9%, to close at $46.75 per share on October 22, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. The Defendant First American is a Fortune 500 company with over 18,000 employees and over $5 billion in revenue. Through its subsidiaries, First American provides financial services through its title insurance and services segment and its specialty insurance segment. Dennis J. Gilmore has been the Chief Executive Officer and a Director of First American during the Class Period. Mark E. Seaton has been the Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of First American during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com FLIGHT SERVICES: Court Denies Flores-Litman's Class Status Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAM FLORES-LITMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00346-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Richard B. Farrer entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice Flores-Litman's motion for conditional certification; and 2. dismissing as moot Litman's motion for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information. The Court said, "Even applying the most lenient standard for conditional certification, Flores-Litman has failed to show certification of a national class is warranted at this stage. Specifically, Flores-Litman hasn't shown that the proposed class members are "similarly situated in terms of job requirements and similarly situated in terms of payment provisions." Although she generically contends that "all salaried operations managers perform the same type of work and are subject to the same corporate policies and procedures." Flores-Litman's personal knowledge concerning the duties of other Operations Managers was limited to the San Antonio Airport. At the same time, FSS has produced ample evidence demonstrating that the job requirements and duties of Operations Managers differ depending on the particular airline and airports serviced. For example, the Portland Operations Manager handles many human resources and financial duties, while neither Flores-Litman nor the Boston Operations Manager performed these type of functions." Flight Services & Systems, LLC is an aviation service company headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, founded in 2000. A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31wlHyi at no extra charge.[CC] FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Burress Sues Over Inaccurate Mortgage Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES BURRESS, on behalf of himself and the putative class v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-15242-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., Oct. 30, 2020) arises from the Defendant's practice of sending periodic mortgage statements to borrowers such as the Plaintiff, where the statements include misleading and patently conflicting recitations of the "amount due," in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. On September 29, 2014, Mr. Burress entered into a mortgage promissory note with the Defendant to finance the purchase of his residence located at 1990 Wellbourne Drive NE, Apt. 2, Atlanta, Georgia. Since entering into the mortgage, Freedom Mortgage has allegedly sent mortgage statements to Mr. Burress that were nonsensical and provided false and misleading disclosures concerning the amount due on the mortgage on a repeated basis. According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed inconsistent amounts of $407.36 and $417.60 that were each due on December 1, 2019. As a result of the nonsensical and misleading mortgage statements from the Defendant, on or about June 4, 2020, Mr. Burress sent a "request for information" or "qualified written request" by certified mail to the Defendant pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. As of the date hereof, Freedom Mortgage has failed to respond to the Plaintiff's request, as it is required to pursuant to RESPA. Based in New Jersey, Freedom Mortgage Corporation engages in the business of originating home purchase loans, including refinancing of such loans, to the members of the public at large nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. DiSabato, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. DiSABATO & CONSIDINE LLC 196 Santiago Avenue Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 762-5088 Facsimile: (973) 453-0338 E-mail: ddisabato@disabatolaw.com lconsidine@disabatolaw.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 1212 SE 2nd Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com GAMA CONSTRUCTION: Braulio Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ HOLGUIN BRAULIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. GAMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. and MANUEL RAUL GONZALES VARELA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:0-cv-00940 (M.D. Tenn., October 30, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker, alleges that the Defendants have a practice of failing to record all of the hours worked by him and other similarly situated construction workers. Thus, despite regularly working over 40 hours per week, they were only compensated by the Defendants for the unrecorded overtime work at only their regular hourly rate of pay via personal check and/or cash. Gama Construction Company Inc. is a company that provides construction services, owned by Manuel Raul Gonzales Varela. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com - and – Nina H. Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Tel: (615) 851-1776 Fax: (615) 859-7033 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com GAMESTOP CORP: Faces Redmond Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA REDMOND, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. GAMESTOP CORPORATION, Case No. RG20077059 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 15, 2020) is a representative action brought pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code, arising from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices. The Plaintiff brings this PAGA action on behalf of herself and similarly situated retail store employees who (1) were not paid minimum wages or overtime wages for work performed off-the-clock and/or at the correct rate of pay; (2) did not receive meal and rest periods to which they were entitled by law; (3) did not receive accurate, itemized wage statements; and (4) were not timely paid all wages due to them, including at termination or upon separation of employment; and (5) were not reimbursed for necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Redmond was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt store employee in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94ll1 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra C. Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 3343l Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2000 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 GEICO GENERAL: Milligan Appeals Order in Insurance Suit to 2nd Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Lorena M. Milligan filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Milligan v. Geico General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 16-cv-240, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover actual, consequential, and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under GEICO Policies and New York Law. The appellate case is captioned as Milligan v. Geico General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20-3726, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Lorena M. Milligan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sharon Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com Defendants-Appellees GEICO General Insurance Company and CCC Information Services Inc. are represented by: Michael P. Versichelli, Esq. RIVKIN RADLER LLP 926 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (516) 357-3000 E-mail: michael.versichelli@rivkin.com - and - Blake Denton, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 E-mail: blake.denton@lw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Massie Suit in Calif. Over Personal Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors Company, et al. The case is captioned as Dakotah Massie and Neil Manglani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors Company and Decibel Insight, Inc., Case No. Decibel Insight, Inc. (E.D. Cal., November 4, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as P.I.: Other filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Injury. General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq. Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.com GILLIG LLC: Tolentino Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN VOEKS, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of JULIE VOEKS, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OUT TECH., INC. d/b/a BUREAU OF ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01613-BHL (E.D. Wis. October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Wisconsin Consumer Act, and the state common law. On or around April 23, 2020 the Defendant mailed to the Plaintiff a debt collection letter addressed to "Julie Francis Voeks" regarding an alleged debt owed to "Select Medical Corporation." The alleged debts were incurred as the result of a transaction for personal medical services with an agreement to defer payment. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an envelope containing a window hole or a transparent, "glassine" window displaying her name and address and the Defendant's return address. Also printed immediately below the Defendant's return address and in bold italic font, is the language, "PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL." The use of such extraneous text on an envelope containing a dunning letter, or visible on the front of the envelope through a window is a violation of the federal and state laws. Out Tech., Inc., d/b/a Bureau of Account Management, is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com GILLIG LLC: Tolentino Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Ronald Tolentino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gillig, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. RG20073930, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 22, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07427-AGT to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. Gillig, LLC is an American designer and manufacturer of buses. The company headquarters, along with its manufacturing operations, is located in Livermore, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. Enzo Dalgat Nabiev, Esq. MOON AND YANG, APC 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Walter Warren, Esq. William Faulkner, Esq. MCMANIS FAULKNER 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95113-2303 Telephone: (408) 279-8700 Facsimile: (408) 279-3244 E-mail: mwarren@mcmanislaw.com wfaulkner@mcmanislaw.com - and - Craig Martin, Esq. Matt D. Basil, Esq. WILLKIE FAR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9024 Facsimile: (312) 728-9199 E-mail: cmartin@willkie.com mbasil@willkie.com GOM GRAPHICS: So Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Staff ------------------------------------------------------- YONG U. ("KEVIN") SO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. GOM GRAPHICS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04335-LMM (N.D. Ga., October 22, 2020) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and the Class members overtime for some or all of their work activities in excess of eight hours per day and 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse employee providing general warehouse duties from February 2018 through July 7, 2020. GOM Graphics, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that manufactures many various types of signs including traditional lighted outdoor signs and liquid emitting diode signs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Strelzik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. STRELZIK, P.C. 5 Concourse Parkway - Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (770) 730-2515 Facsimile: (770) 392-3303 E-mail: sstrelzik@sjslawga.com GOODVILLE MUTUAL: Mitchell Sues Over Breach of Insurance Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GOODVILLE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 201001979 (Philadelphia Ct. Com. Pl., Oct. 27, 2020), alleges that Goodville denied rental coverage available under the Transportation Expense provisions of an insurance policy, without making the required determination of the amount of time reasonably required to replace the insured vehicle. The Plaintiff contends that Goodville processed, adjusted, and handled all Transportation Expenses claims under the Policies in the same manner, resulting in the denial of rental coverage. She adds that Goodville terminated her Transportation Expense benefits without making a determination of the amount of time reasonably required to replace her vehicle. As a result of Goodville's breach, she claims that she is entitled to recover the remaining $510 of Transportation Expense benefits under the Policy. In March 2017, there was in full force and effect an automobile insurance policy between Ms. Mitchell and Goodville, Policy No. 213478 (the "Policy"). The Policy provided, among other benefits, insurance coverage for the use of Ms. Mitchell's automobile, a 2008 Honda Civic. On March 29, 2017 at approximately 8:15 A.M., Ms. Mitchell was involved in an automobile collision in Pennsylvania. The loss was a covered loss under the Policy, the complaint says This action is brought individually and as a class action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Mitchell seeks to represent all members of the following class of all persons, since at least six years prior to the filing of this Complaint, who have been policyholders of automobile insurance policies sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by the Defendant that have provided Transportation Expense coverage, who have made a claim to the Defendant for Transportation Expense coverage as a result of a total loss of a vehicle damaged in a covered accident. The Plaintiff is an adult individual residing at 24 Pogue Avenue, Rising Sun, Maryland. Goodville Mutual is an insurance company registered and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Ochroch, Esq. Brett N. Benton, Esq. Andrew R. Ochroch, Esq. RICHARD M. OCHROCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 318 S. 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 735-2707 Facsimile: (215) 790-0491 E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com - and - Marc. P. Weingarten, Esq. James A. Barry, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM 601 Walnut Street, Suite 720 East 170 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 893-0100 Facsimile: (215) 893-3333 E-mail: mweingarten@lockslaw.com GOODWIN MANAGEMENT: Dahl Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DAHL and RET DAHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOODWIN MANAGEMENT, INC. and MANNING & MEYERS ATTORNEYS at LAW, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03294-N (N.D. Tex., October 30, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged engagement in debt collection activities against the Plaintiff and the putative class in violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have received collection letters from Defendant Goldwin on or about April 1, 2019 attempting to collect an alleged debt owed to Quail Creek HOA in sum of $5,385.00. However, the collection letters received by the Plaintiffs were false, deceptive and misleading because aside from the fact that the Plaintiffs do not owe Quail Creek HOA $5,385.00, Defendant Goodwin attempted to collect an amount from the Plaintiffs that was not authorized by agreement or law. Defendant Goodwin allegedly violated FDCA and TDCA because it failed to post a debt collection bond with the Texas Secretary of State's office, and falsely credit reported the status of the consumer debt with an inaccurate status, dates, and amounts to the consumer reporting agencies. Goodwin Management, Inc. and Manning & Meyers Attorneys at Law are collection agencies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn Jaffer, Esq. SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC 13601 Preston Rd., Suite E750 Dallas, TX 75240 Tel: (214) 494-1668 Fax: (469) 669-0786 E-mail: Shawn@jaffer.law GOOGLE LLC: Dinerstein Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Matt Dinerstein filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Matt Dinerstein v. Google, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04311, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants The University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Medical Center, and Google, and (ii) terminated as moot the University's motion to strike the class allegations. In 2017, the Defendants began a research partnership in which they used machine-learning techniques to create predictive health models aimed at reducing hospital readmissions and anticipating future medical events. As part of the research, the University disclosed to Google the "de-identified" electronic health records of all adult patients treated at its hospital from Jan. 1, 2010 through June 30, 2016. Plaintiff Matt Dinerstein was an inpatient at the University in June 2015 and, asserting a variety of state-law claims, commenced the lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act on behalf of all patients whose medical information was disclosed for the Defendants' research. The amended class action complaint alleges that Mr. Dinerstein had two separate hospital stays as a patient at the University's hospital in June 2015. Each stay lasted for a few days, and the Plaintiff paid premiums and other fees to health insurers who provided coverage for the treatment and services he received. During his stays at the hospital and throughout 2015, Mr. Dinerstein maintained an account with Defendant Google and used a smartphone with Google applications on it, which, he alleges, collected and transmitted to Google his geolocation information. Also during these stays, the University generated and maintained health records for the Plaintiff, which included such sensitive information as his demographic data, vital signs, diagnoses, procedures, and prescriptions. He received two forms relevant to this sensitive information: the Admission and Outpatient Agreement and Authorization form, and the Notice of Privacy Practices. In May 2017, Google announced that it had partnered with the University to use "machine learning" to identify patients' health problems and predict future medical events. To conduct the study, the University transferred electronic health records ("EHRs") to Google. The transfer was made pursuant to a December 2016 Data Use Agreement ("DUA") under which the University would transfer to Google the EHRs of every patient, age 18 or older, who used the University's outpatient, inpatient, or emergency services between Jan. 1, 2010 and June 30, 2016. Google has submitted a patent application for a system that aggregates EHR data and uses machine learning on those records to predict future medical events. According to the amended complaint, by submitting the patent application in 2017, Google demonstrated its clear intent to commercialize the University's medical records prior to obtaining them. The Plaintiff alleges that while Google retains all rights to the software created using the EHRs, the DUA granted the University a perpetual license to use that software. Google disputes this characterization of the DUA. In fact, it is not apparent to the court what exactly has been granted to the University. The DUA grants to the University, for internal non-commercial research purposes, a nonexclusive, perpetual license to use the Trained Models and Predictions created by Google. The Trained Model refers to the model created via machine learning conducted on the EHRs, and Predictions are the results of the model's computations. The appellate case is captioned as Matt Dinerstein v. Google, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-3134, in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript information sheet is due by November 16, 2020; -- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 14, 2020 for Matt Dinerstein.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MATT DINERSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: atievsky@edelson.com Defendants-Appellees GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, and UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER are represented by: Jeffrey T. Norberg, Esq. NEAL & MCDEVITT, LLC 1776 Ash Street Northfield, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 441-9100 E-mail: jnorberg@nealmcdevitt.com - and - Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 693-2181 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com - and - Brian D. Sieve, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: brian.sieve@kirkland.com GOOGLE LLC: Montoya Sues Over Money Lost to Online Gambling ----------------------------------------------------------- ERICA MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-01098 (D.N.M., Oct. 23, 2020), seeks to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 44-5-1 of the New Mexico Statutes, 2018. According to the complaint, Google promotes, enables and profits from games downloaded from its Google Play Store and played by numerous New Mexico residents that constitute illegal gambling under the statutory law and the strong public policy of the state of New Mexico. Montoya, an adult, resides in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google Payment Corp. provides in-app payment processing services to Android app developers and Android users, collecting a 30% commission on most in-app purchases such as the ones made the basis of this lawsuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY KENNEDY & IVES, PC 1000 2nd Street NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244-1400 Facsimile: (505) 244-1406 E-mail: jpk@civilrightslaw.com - and - D. Frank Davis, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. Dargan M. Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP* The Bradshaw House 2154 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com wbarnett@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com GOOGLE LLC: Smith Sues over Money Lost to Illegal Gambling ---------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00194-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Oct. 21, 2020), seeks to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 87-1-5 of the Code of Mississippi. According to the complaint, Google promotes, enables and profits from games downloaded from its Google Play Store and played by numerous Mississippi residents that constitute illegal gambling under the statutory law and the strong public policy of the state of Mississippi. Smith, an adult, resides in Forrest County, Mississippi. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google Payment Corp. provides in-app payment processing services to Android app developers and Android users, collecting a 30% commission on most in-app purchases such as the ones made the basis of this lawsuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC 105 North College Street Brandon, MI 39042 Telephone: (601) 624-7460 Facsimile: (866)900-4850 E-mail: Chris@WeldyLawFirm.com HAWTHORNE HEALTHCARE: Daniels Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Nurses --------------------------------------------------------------- MYKEISHA DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly aggrieved v. HAWTHORNE HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP, a California limited partnership; VERNON HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, a California limited partnership; BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO., a California corporation; BRIUS, LLC, a California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV39895 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brought this action to recover from the Defendants penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid and illegally calculated overtime and minimum wages compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties. In or around July 2015, the Plaintiff was hired as an hourly, non-exempt certified nurse assistant for Hawthorne Healthcare until July 2016. In or around August 2016, the Plaintiff was hired as an hourly, non-exempt certified nurse assistant for Brius Management and Brius LLC at their Las Flores Convalescent Hospital facility until December 2017. In or around December 2017, the Plaintiff was hired as an hourly, and is a current non-exempt licensed vocational nurse for Vernon Healthcare. The Defendants are healthcare institutions in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. Neil M. Larsen, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com nlarsen@maternlawgroup.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fonseca Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Bryant Fonseca filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled BRYANT FONSECA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; HP, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01748-GPC-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint contained seven counts: (1) Disparate Treatment; (2) Disparate Impact; (3) Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy; (4) Failure To Prevent Discrimination; (5) Violation of the Cartwright Act; (6) Violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code 16600; and (7) Unfair Competition. The Plaintiff alleges that HP eliminated the jobs of older, age-protected employees in order to begin replacing them with younger employees. According to the Plaintiff, the U.S. Workforce Reduction (WFR) plan disproportionately targeted older, age-protected employees, and older employees were almost never rehired pursuant to the Preferential Rehire Period provided for in the WFR Plan. The Plaintiff further alleges that HP and non-party 3D Systems Inc. had entered into a "no poach" agreement that prevented the Plaintiff and other employees from obtaining employment at 3D Systems. The Plaintiff also asserts that the WFR Plan restrained HP employees' ability to work for competitors because of (1) its requirement that WFR Plan participants employees notify management if they accept a job offer with a competitor in order to receive severance pay, (2) the provision in the summary Plan Description of the WFR Plan that states that acceptance of a position with a competitor during the redeployment period would render them ineligible for severance pay, and (3) the Rehire Policy incorporated in the WFR Plan that renders "employees who left the company, in May 2012 or later, through a workforce reduction program. The appellate case is captioned as Bryant Fonseca v. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Com, et al., Case No. 20-56161, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Bryant Fonseca Mediation Questionnaire is due on November 12, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by December 4, 2020; -- Transcript is due on January 4, 2021; -- Appellant Bryant Fonseca opening brief is due on February 12, 2021; -- Appellees Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company, et al. answering brief is due on March 15, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRYANT FONSECA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is represented by: Tyler Belong, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG APC 430 Nutmeg Street San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 238-4720 E-mail: tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com - and - Martin Nebrida Buchanan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN N. BUCHANAN 655 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-2426 E-mail: martin@martinbuchanan.com Defendants-Appellees HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and HP, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Meryl C. Maneker, Esq. Valerie Phan, Esq. Claudette G. Wilson, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 E-mail: mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com vphan@wilsonturnerkosmo.com cwilson@wilsonturnerkosmo.com HFM INC: Bid to Certify Class in Brigati Suit Denied for Now ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brigati, et al., v. HFM, Inc. et al., 2:20-cv-14208 Case No. (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order denying without prejudice a Motion to Certify Class. The Court said it cannot rule on the Motion to Certify Class until it resolves the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The Plaintiffs may refile their motion for class certification within seven days of the Court's Order on the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The Court acknowledges the parties timely filed the Motion to Certify Class, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, and as such, the motion will be considered timely if it is refiled.[CC] HFM INC: Brigati Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Golf Club Owners ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE BRIGATI, PAUL DESOYE, THOMAS MAYRIDES, DENNIS PAYNE, T. MICHAEL PAYNE, W.O. PEARCE, AND GARY SCARAFONI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HFM, INC., a Florida for profit corporation, and WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-14208-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all owners of master or equity golf memberships at the Legacy Golf & Tennis Club, Inc., which formerly was known as The Reserve Golf & Tennis Club, Inc."; and 2. appointing their counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs own equity golf memberships in the Legacy Golf and Tennis Club in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights, and the rights of other similarly situated people, to own and operate the Club in accord with the Plan for the Offering of Memberships in the Legacy Golf and Tennis Club, Inc. dated September 1, 1996. The Defendant Worcester Polytechnic Institute ("WPI") owns Defendant HFM, Inc. ("HFM"), and HFM owns the Club. Through HFM, WPI controls the Club. The sole purpose of the Club is to operate a private club for the exclusive pleasure and recreation of its members. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e1mXyB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elaine Johnson James, Esq. ELAINE JOHNSON JAMES P.A. P.O. Box 31512 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 Telephone: (561) 245-1144 Facsimile: (561) 244-9580 E-mail: ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com ejjames50@icloud.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Germak Says Restaurant Service Fee "Unlawful" --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA MARIE GERMAK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., RLJ CABANA MIAMI BEACH, LLC, and RLJ CABANA MIAMI BEACH LESSEE, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-24511 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful inclusion of an automatic, mandatory gratuity or service charge of approximately 18% to 20% of the charges for food and beverages without providing the statutorily required notice; and/or presenting the notice of an automatic gratuity or service charge in small, hard to read type. According to the complaint, on October 8, 2020, the Plaintiff dined at the Allison Bar at the Hilton Cabana Miami Beach hotel, located in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff contends that when she was presented with a restaurant bill, she noticed that an automatic, mandatory service charge of 20% was included with the charges for food and beverage on the check, under the subtotal for the meal items. The Plaintiff did not see any notice on the restaurant's menu she reviewed that an automatic gratuity or service charge of any amount would be added to the customer's check. The Defendants' conduct violated the Florida Statute 509.214, and/or the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances, Sec. 8A-110.1(1) for the properties in Miami-Dade County, and the Florida Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the suit says. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., RLJ Cabana Miami Beach, LLC, and RLJ Cabana Miami Beach Lessee, LLC own, operate, manage, franchise and/or control food service establishments or contain food service establishments in the state of Florida, including the Hilton Cabana Miami Beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com - and - John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Lewis J. Saul, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 376-8450 Facsimile: (212) 376-8447 E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Gatore Seeks to Certify FOIA Requesters Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICA GATORE, ET AL, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 1:15-cv-00459-RBW (D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all persons who, from October 2012 through December 2017, made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the entire Assessment of their asylum office, but were not given the factual portions thereof." The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant DHS has treated a large number of FOIA requesters in exactly the same way. DHS has wrongfully withheld the entire asylum office assessment from all requesters, from October 2012 through December 2017, the Plaintiffs allege. From October 2012 through December 2017, DHS had a policy and practice of providing no part of the asylum office assessment, in response to FOIA requests by asylum applicants. On October 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding 35 new individuals. The first new plaintiff is Alemu Dinedge, whose Eleventh Cause of Action begins of that complaint. Then follow 34 more individuals. The 35th new plaintiff is Tigiest Beyene, whose 47th Cause of Action begins of that complaint. Catholic Charities is no longer a plaintiff. The "individual plaintiffs" who file this motion are the plaintiffs from the 11th through the 47th cause of action. Earlier in this litigation, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That motion was denied. Now, 35 new plaintiffs file a motion for class certification, under Rule 23(b)(3). Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34D1lpa t no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Cleveland, Esq. 1220 L Street NW No. 100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202 812-8684 E-mail: 1949.david@gmail.com HOMES FOR INDEPENDENT: Bishop Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- CHENEY BISHOP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HOMES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING OF WISCONSIN LLC, Case No. 20-cv-1670 (E.D. Wis., November 5, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The complaint alleges that the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time from employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift, post-shift, and in-shift hours worked and/or work performed in a non-neutral manner and to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of the Defendant; and (2) failing to compensate said employees for daily rest breaks and/or meal periods during which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at least 30 consecutive minutes. In approximately November 2011, the Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the state of Wisconsin. During Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, she worked in various hourly-paid, non-exempt positions, such as direct support professional, scheduler, program specialist, and independent living assistant. The Plaintiff is still currently employed by the Defendant. Homes for Independent Living of Wisconsin LLC is headquartered in Dousman, Wisconsin, and is a privately-owned company that provides residential and community-based services for adults with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com HORACE MANN: Fails to Pay Medical Expenses, MSP Recovery Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, AND MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, v. HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, HORACE MANN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24419-KMW (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have systematically and uniformly failed to honor Plaintiffs' primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act (the "MSP Law"), by failing to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents (the "accident-related medical expenses"). As a result of 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 42 U.S.C. section 1395w-22(b)(4). 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, says the complaint. Pursuant to their contractual obligations with their insureds, and under state law, the Defendants are to provide coverage for their insureds' accident-related medical expenses on a "no-fault" basis (that is, without reference to or regard for whether the insured caused the accident in question). In the case of automobile and other accidents specifically involving Enrollees of MA Plans, Defendants are considered primary plans under the MSP Law. The Plaintiffs contend that they and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers. 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 (the "Enrollees").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. Michael O. Mena, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - Francesco Zincone, Esq. Eduardo Bertran Esq. J. Alfredo Armas, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE 4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 661-2021 E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com alfred@armaslaw.com HOTS INC: Lofton Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Exotic Dancers ------------------------------------------------------------ CHALLES LOFTON, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. HOTS, INC. D/B/A HOT'S GENTLEMAN’S CLUB, ANTHONY FRANK CATROPPA SR., and KIMBERLY MILLS individually, Case No. 3:20-cv-05107-MDH (W.D. Mo., Nov. 4, 2020) alleges that the Defendants required the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club, but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and denied them overtime compensation. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants misclassified dancers, including her, as independent contractors. Her only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. In fact, the Defendants required her to pay a "stage fee" in order to work in the club. Essentially, the Defendants took money from the Plaintiff under the premise that they must pay to use the club's space to make money. The Plaintiff was also required to share her tips with the Defendants and employees who do not customarily receive tips outside of a valid tip pool, the suit says. Plaintiff Challes Lofton is an individual residing in Neosho, Missouri. She worked for the Defendants in Jane, Missouri consistently from December 2016 to October 2019. Defendant Hots, Inc. is a Missouri for-profit corporation believed to be doing business as Hot's Gentleman's Club in Jane, Missouri at 36 Palomino Drive, Jane, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack McInnes, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 1900 W. 75th Street, Suite 220 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 220-2488 Facsimile: (913) 347-7333 E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com - and - David W. Hodges, Esq. Tina E. Gutierrez, Esq. HODGES AND FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com tgutierrez@hftrialfirm.com HOUSE OF INTUITION: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Lucius Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- WINDY LUCIUS v. HOUSE OF INTUITION INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-24358-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2020) is an action brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the Defendant failed to construct its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize the Defendant's Website located at https://houseofintuitionla.com/ but was unable to, and she continues to be unable to enjoy full and equal access to the Website and/or understand the content therein because numerous portions of the Website do not interface with and are not readable by Screen Reader Software. The Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions present at the Defendant's website. By continuing to operate its Website with discriminatory conditions, the Defendant contributes to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation and deprives the Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the general public, the suit says. House of Intuition, Inc. is a metaphysical shop aimed at helping people achieve healing, transformation, empowerment and personal growth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com HUDSON FULTON: Faces Hurtado Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- JHON JAIRO CID HURTADO, VICTOR PEGUERO, and ALBERTO DE LA ROSA VOLQUEZ ROMEL individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HUDSON FULTON CORP. (d/b/a INDIAN ROAD CAFE), JASON MINTER, and THOMAS BOSCO, Case No. 1:20-cv-09133 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices and policies in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked, failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each day their spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failed to provide notice and recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to pay on a regular weekly basis. The Plaintiffs further assert, pursuant to the Wage Theft Prevention Act, New York Labor Law Section 198(1-b)-(1-d), that the Defendants violated the same New York Labor Law, and that the Plaintiffs should be awarded statutory damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief available by law. Plaintiff Hurtado was employed by the Defendants from approximately April 24, 2014 until on or about December 2016, from approximately January 2018 until on or about March 2019, and from approximately September 2019 until on or about November 26, 2019 as a line cook at the Defendants' bar and grill. Plaintiff Peguero was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2012 until on or about September 21, 2019 as a dishwasher, a food preparer, and a line cook at the Defendants' bar and grill. Plaintiff De La Rosa was employed by the Defendants from approximately September 2017 until on or about December 11, 2019 as a dishwasher, a line cook, and a sous chef at the Defendants' bar and grill. Hudson Fulton Corp. owns, operates and/or controls a bar and grill in the Inwood section of Manhattan in New York City under the name "Indian Road Cafe."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua S. Androphy, Esq. MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC 87 Walker Street, Floor 2 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 620-0938 E-mail: jandrophy@m-t-law.com HUMANA AT HOME: Class Status Bid in Green Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Molly Green v. Humana At Home, Inc., Case No. e 1:16-cv-07586-AJN-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan entered an order: 1. administratively denying Green's motion for class certification, without prejudice to re-filing after the proposed settlement in Kinkead v. Humana at Home, Inc., 15-cv-1637 (JAM) has been approved or rejected by the Kinkead court; 2. granting Humana's letter motion to stay; and 3. denying as moot the proposed amici's motion to file a brief in opposition to class certification and Humana's letter motion for oral argument. The Court said, "This action is stayed and all pending deadlines and conferences are adjourned sine die. The parties shall file a joint status report once the Kinkead settlement has been approved or rejected or by December 21, 2020, whichever comes earlier. On October 21, 2020, Humana At Home notified the Court of a settlement in principle in Kinkead v. Humana at Home, Inc., 15-cv-1637 (JAM), a class action presenting similar claims proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The class in Kinkead substantially overlaps with the proposed class in this case, and it appears likely that a final judgment in Kinkead may preclude some or all of Green's class claims." A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mkqElM at no extra charge.[CC] HUNGARY: Seeks D.C. Cir. Review of Federal Court Decision --------------------------------------------------------- Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt. and Republic of Hungary have taken an appeal from the District Court's Order entered in the lawsuit styled Rosalie Simon, et al., v. Republic of Hungary, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-01770-BAH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 11, 2020, the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Howell said, "The plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges, in claims asserting genocidal takings of property from Hungarian Jews between 1941 and 1945, that each defendant, Hungary and MAV, commingled that expropriated property in the country's treasury and thereby continue to possess such property to sustain their commercial activities, including Hungary's debt offerings and military purchases in the United States, and MAV's agent's commercial activities in the United States. These allegations suffice to satisfy the FSIA's expropriation exception and overcome the default grant of sovereign immunity to the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims may go forward against the defendants. The appellate case is captioned as Rosalie Simon; Helen Herman; Charlotte Weiss; Helena Weksberg; Tzvi Zelikovitch; Rose Miller; Magda Kopolovich Bar-Or; Zehava (Olga) Friedman; Yitzhak Pressburger; Alexander Speiser; Ze'ev Tibi Ram; Vera Deutsch Danos; Ella Feuerstein Schlanger, Individually, for themselves and for all others similarly situated; Moshe Perel; Yosef Yogev, In His Capacity As Heir At Law to Tzvi Zelikovitch, Deceased; Esther Zelikovitch, In Her Capacity As Heir At Law to Tzvi Zelikovitch, Deceased; and Asher Yogev, In His Capacity As Heir At Law To Tzvi Zelikovitch, Deceased, the Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Republic of Hungary and Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., (MAV ZRT.), the Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-7025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Twelve of the plaintiffs allege they were transported in 1944 by Defendants MAV and/or RCH from their homes in Hungary to labor or death camps in various countries as part of the Nazi-led assault on the Jewish people.[BN] * * * The parties are also involved in an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue: "Whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies." In the Supreme Court case, the Republic of Hungary filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in May 2019. The High Court is scheduled to hear argument on December 7, 2020. Information on the Supreme Court case is available at https://bit.ly/36qf4PM The Plaintiffs-Appellees Rosalie Simon; Helen Herman; Charlotte Weiss; Helena Weksberg; Tzvi Zelikovitch; Rose Miller; Magda Kopolovich Bar-Or; Zehava (Olga) Friedman; Yitzhak Pressburger; Alexander Speiser; Ze'ev Tibi Ram; Vera Deutsch Danos; Ella Feuerstein Schlanger, Individually, for themselves and for all others similarly situated; Moshe Perel; Yosef Yogev, In His Capacity As Heir At Law to Tzvi Zelikovitch, Deceased; Esther Zelikovitch, In Her Capacity As Heir At Law to Tzvi Zelikovitch, Deceased; and Asher Yogev, In His Capacity As Heir At Law To Tzvi Zelikovitch, Deceased, are represented by: Charles Samuel Fax, Esq. RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 - and - Paul G. Gaston, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL G. GASTON 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 607 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202 296-5856 - and - David H. Weinstein, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 100 South Broad Street, Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: 215 545-7200 - and - Marc Zell, Esq. ZELL, ARON & CO. 34 Ben Yehuda Street, 15th Floor Jerusalem Telephone: 011-972-2-633-6300 The Defendants-Appellants Republic of Hungary and Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., (MAV ZRT.), are represented by: Konrad L. Cailteux, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: 212 310-8000 HV OCCUPATIONAL: Rapp Suit Seeks to Certify Site Paramedics Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN RAPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HV OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ADVISORS OF AMERICA, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; ROBERT MITCHELL; and ADEN SCHILLIG, Case No. 1:20-cv-02043-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional collective action certification and court-approved notice to a collective of: "all Site Paramedics (regardless of the actual title bestowed upon them) who worked for HV at any time during the last three years plus any period of tolling." The Plaintiff contends HV closely controls the details of its Site Paramedics' work, including their assigned work locations, schedules, pay rates, and job duties. Site Paramedics regularly work more than 40 hours per workweek but do not receive any overtime compensation. The Plaintiff alleges HV systematically deprives its hard-working Site Paramedics, including him, of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). HV specifically has a company-wide policy of routinely requiring Site Paramedics to work well in excess of 40 hours per workweek using pay practices which are divorced from the actual number of hours worked, he adds. HV provides medical and safety services to general contractors at construction sites across the United States. To perform these services, HV employs Site Paramedics that it sends to its customers' worksites. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mjjYEj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Lewis, Esq. Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Andrew E. Swan, Esq. LEWIS | KUHN | SWAN PC 620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 694-3000 E-mail: plewis@lks.law mkuhn@lks.law aswan@lks.law INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Chauhan Sues Over 8% Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAKESH CHAUHAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MARK PRUZANSKI, and SANDIP S. KAPADIA, Case No. 1:20-cv-05377 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Intercept securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020, both dates inclusive. Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid (OCA)), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), a rare and chronic liver disease, in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults. The Company is also developing OCA for various other indications, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval of Ocaliva for treating PBC. Then, in late 2017, both Intercept and the FDA issued warnings concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the drug, and multiple reports of severe liver injuries and deaths linked with its use. Despite these concerns, the Defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales and purported benefits, and its potential indication for treating various other medical conditions. For example, just two years later, in September 2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA for OCA to treat patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter (CRL) rejecting the Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was "facing an investigation from the FDA over the potential risk of liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or 8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020, the suit says. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets biopharmaceutical products. The Company focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat chronic liver diseases utilizing proprietary bile acid chemistry. Intercept Pharmaceuticals serves patients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com J & Z FOOD: Faces Lara Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- JORGE LARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. J & Z FOOD MART AND SUPERMARKET INC. (D/B/A AL-AQSA SUPERMARKET), MOHAMMAD S. HOQUE (A.K.A. KALIN), and IBRAHIM DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-09152 (S.D.N.Y., November 2, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to provide an accurate wage statement, and required him to pay, without reimbursement, the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of the trade" required to perform his job, further reducing his wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately May 3, 2020 until on or about September 5, 2020 as a laborer and a cleaner. J & Z Food Mart and Supermarket Inc. owns, operates, or controls a supermarket, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Al-Aqsa Supermarket."[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 J.B. PRITZKER: Clark Seeks to Certify Inmates Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICO CLARK, SHELBY TURNER, and NATHANIEL FLEMING, v. J.B. PRITZKER, ET AL., Case No. 3:20-cv-01133-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of over 2,000 other inmates housed at Menard Correctional Center. Menard Correctional Center, known prior to 1970 as Southern Illinois Penitentiary, is an Illinois state prison located in the town of Chester in Randolph County, Illinois. It houses maximum-security and high medium-security adult males. Jay Robert "J. B." Pritzker is the 43rd Governor of Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Oct. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TDn2z2 at no extra charge. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC] JJ'S ASIAN: Cruz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CRUZ and ELOY MARTINEZ BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JJ'S ASIAN FUSION INC. (D/B/A JJ'S FUSION), ZI JIE LIN , and HU DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-0512 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs contend that they worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants JJ's Asian Fusion Inc. They were employed as a cook and a delivery worker at the restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Asian fusion restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 JPMORGAN CHASE: Mehta Sues Over Common Shares Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- KAUSHAL MEHTA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JAMES DIMON, JENNIFER PIEPSZAK, and MARIANNE LAKE, Case No. 1:20-cv-05124 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2020), is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded JPMorgan securities between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 23, 2016, the Company filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (the "2015 10-K"). The 2015 10-K was signed by the Defendants Dimon and Lake. The 2015 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by the Defendants Dimon and Lake attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. On September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million to settle the spoofing and manipulation charges. According to the order, the Company failed to monitor its employees and ignored multiple red flags. The Company also provided the CFTC with misleading information. From approximately January 1, 2009 until December 31, 2015, traders at the Company manipulated the prices of precious metals futures and options contracts using a technique called "spoofing" whereby traders placed electronic orders to buy and sell such futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders before execution. Such spoof orders injected materially false and illegitimate signals of supply and demand into the market and were intended to induce other market participants to trade against Defendants' genuine orders (i.e., orders that Defendants did want to execute). The Precious Metals Desk and Treasuries Desk traders, on behalf of JPMorgan, placed bids and offers for certain gold, silver, platinum, palladium, Treasury note, and Treasury bond futures contracts traded on Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX"), the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX"), and the Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT"), which are futures exchanges and Designated Contract Markets owned and operated by CME Group Inc. ("CME"). JPMorgan traders placed hundreds of thousands of orders to buy or sell futures contracts with the intent to cancel them before execution, intentionally sending false signals of supply or demand designed to deceive market participants into executing against other orders they wanted filled. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. JPMorgan purports to operate as a financial services company worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com KENNETH REES: Gibbs et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE GIBBS, et. al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KENNETH REES, Case No. 3:20-cv-00717-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho, Lawrence Mwethuku, Kimetra Brice, Earl Browne, Jill Novorot, India Banks, Alicia Patterson, JoAnn Griffiths and Jeri Brennan ask the Court for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the class settlement; 2. granting certification of a settlement class: "all persons within the United States to whom Great Plains has lent money; all persons within the United States to whom Plain Green had lent money prior to June 1, 2016; and all persons within the United States who received a cash advance from Mobiloans prior to May 6, 2017"; 3. appointing Class Counsel the law firms of Kelly Guzzo PLC, and Tycko & Zavareei LLP; and 4. approving form and manner of notice. -- The Consideration Provided To The Settlement Class Under The Settlement Agreement. Generally, Class Members are eligible for cash payments. The Plaintiffs achieved the proposed settlement in the face of substantial defenses, including substantial Rule 23 defense leverage. Plaintiffs also recognized that Rees faced multiple actions, threatening both the options and resources available for Class Settlement. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs were able to negotiate a settlement structure that will provide real benefits to consumers nationwide in the form of cash payments to Class Members. The Defendant Rees will pay $3,302,00.00 for distribution to the Class Members. In addition to the payment of $3,302,000.00 cash, the Rees Defendants will also transfer all right, title, interest and possession of the 924,495 NYSE-traded stock shares of Elevate Credit, Inc. they own. The shares will be held and liquidated for the benefit of the consumer Class by the TFLT pursuant to the Plan and the Class Action Settlement. Alternately, Rees is permitted to substitute an additional cash payment of $4,003,063.35. (The Rees Defendants shall have until the date of the Preliminary Approval Order to make this election). Consumers are eligible to receive a financial benefit in the form of a cash payment, the Rees Defendants will either surrender Elevate shares or pay $4,003,063.35 into the TFLT, and Rees will continue to cooperate in the pending actions. The total cash value of the settlement is $7,305,063.35, and the continued cooperation of Rees in the pending in the pending matters will serve to promote the fair resolution of the remaining cases. -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; Service Award. Class Counsel shall make an application to the Court for an award for attorneys' fees, costs, and class administration expenses in an amount not to exceed the acumulative 33% of the Monetary Consideration. The Parties have agreed that the award of attorneys' fees and costs will be paid out of the Settlement Fund in the amount approved by the Court. The Plaintiffs will also apply for a service award for their role as Class Representatives to compensate each Plaintiff for his/her effort in prosecuting this case, including retaining counsel, assisting in discovery, and keeping abreast of the litigation. Service awards will be sought in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for each of the Class Representatives and the Gringas Plaintiffs. The Parties have agreed that the Named Plaintiff service awards will be paid out of the Monetary Consideration in the amount approved by the Court. The litigation arises from alleged violations of state and federal laws related to high interest online loans involving now-settled Think Finance. The Defendant here is the former President of Think Finance. The Court has already approved a groundbreaking class settlement that resulted in Think Finance and others: (1) repaying over $53 million in cash; and (2) forgiving more than $380 million of debt owed by consumers who took out loans with Plain Green, Great Plains, and MobiLoans, the complaint says. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e0uMoe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com - and - Anna C. Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com KENNETH REES: Settlement Reached in Banks Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as INDIA BANKS, et. al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KENNETH REES, Case No. 3:20-cv-00716-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho, Lawrence Mwethuku, Kimetra Brice, Earl Browne, Jill Novorot, India Banks, Alicia Patterson, JoAnn Griffiths and Jeri Brennan ask the Court for an order: 1. grating preliminary approval of the class settlement; 2. granting certification of a settlement class: "all persons within the United States to whom Great Plains has lent money; all persons within the United States to whom Plain Green had lent money prior to June 1, 2016; and all persons within the United States who received a cash advance from Mobiloans prior to May 6, 2017"; 3. appointing Class Counsel the law firms of Kelly Guzzo PLC, and Tycko & Zavareei LLP; and 4. approving form and manner of notice. -- The Consideration Provided To The Settlement Class Under The Settlement Agreement. Generally, Class Members are eligible for cash payments. The Plaintiffs achieved the proposed settlement in the face of substantial defenses, including substantial Rule 23 defense leverage. Plaintiffs also recognized that Rees faced multiple actions, threatening both the options and resources available for Class Settlement. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs were able to negotiate a settlement structure that will provide real benefits to consumers nationwide in the form of cash payments to Class Members. The Defendant Rees will pay $3,302,00.00 for distribution to the Class Members. In addition to the payment of $3,302,000.00 cash, the Rees Defendants will also transfer all right, title, interest and possession of the 924,495 NYSE-traded stock shares of Elevate Credit, Inc. they own. The shares will be held and liquidated for the benefit of the consumer Class by the TFLT pursuant to the Plan and the Class Action Settlement. Alternately, Rees is permitted to substitute an additional cash payment of $4,003,063.35. (The Rees Defendants shall have until the date of the Preliminary Approval Order to make this election). Consumers are eligible to receive a financial benefit in the form of a cash payment, the Rees Defendants will either surrender Elevate shares or pay $4,003,063.35 into the TFLT, and Rees will continue to cooperate in the pending actions. The total cash value of the settlement is $7,305,063.35, and the continued cooperation of Rees in the pending in the pending matters will serve to promote the fair resolution of the remaining cases. -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; Service Award. Class Counsel shall make an application to the Court for an award for attorneys' fees, costs, and class administration expenses in an amount not to exceed the acumulative 33% of the Monetary Consideration. The Parties have agreed that the award of attorneys' fees and costs will be paid out of the Settlement Fund in the amount approved by the Court. The Plaintiffs will also apply for a service award for their role as Class Representatives to compensate each Plaintiff for his/her effort in prosecuting this case, including retaining counsel, assisting in discovery, and keeping abreast of the litigation. Service awards will be sought in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for each of the Class Representatives and the Gringas Plaintiffs. The Parties have agreed that the Named Plaintiff service awards will be paid out of the Monetary Consideration in the amount approved by the Court. The litigation arises from alleged violations of state and federal laws related to high interest online loans involving now-settled Think Finance. The Defendant here is the former President of Think Finance. The Court has already approved a groundbreaking class settlement that resulted in Think Finance and others: (1) repaying over $53 million in cash; and (2) forgiving more than $380 million of debt owed by consumers who took out loans with Plain Green, Great Plains, and MobiLoans, the complaint says. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31Dz9jW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com - and - Anna C. Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com KING OF FREIGHT: Wright Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- HEATHER WRIGHT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KING OF FREIGHT LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01283-LPR (E.D. Ark., Oct. 27, 2020), is a collective action complaint against the Defendant for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act FLSA), and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). According to the complaint, the Defendant directly hired Freight Brokers to work on its behalf, paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their employment. The Plaintiff contends that she and other Freight Brokers regularly worked hours for which they were not paid. She adds that she is not allowed to clock in before 8:00 am and is required to clock out around 5:00 pm, but she is also required to respond to calls from customers and the Defendant to books loads at all hours of the day or night. The Plaintiff estimates she worked around five to ten hours which went unrecorded and uncompensated each week. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum wages and overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA. King of Freight was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hoyt, 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 204O E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm blake@sanfordlawfirm KROGER CO: Faces Brambila Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MARY E. BRAMBILA on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20078001 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., October 27, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay overtime wages by refusing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; ailed to provide meal and rest periods; foiled to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked; failed to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to provide accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay all final wages following separation of employment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee beginning four years prior to the fi1ing of the action until judgment is entered. The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger, is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ralphs Grocery Company is an American supermarket chain in Southern California. The largest subsidiary of Cincinnati-based Kroger, it is the oldest such chain west of the Mississippi River.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented byL Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com LEXICON CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Shamon Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ATHIR SHAMON, individually and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEXICON CONSULTING, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02275 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wage compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from on or about January 2015 through January 2020 to perform duties at Fort Irwin in the city of Barstow, California as a non-exempt hourly paid cultural advisor/role player for members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Plaintiff contends that he spent more time performing duties for the Defendant than he was actually compensated for because the Defendant had a policy and practice of not recording his hours worked and just merely assumed a set amount of time which he would be assigned to participate in roleplaying exercises. Specifically, the Plaintiff was required to drive approximately three hours per day from the barracks to training exercises, and back to the barracks, but he was not compensated for the time he spent traveling. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages and overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all the hours he worked over 40 per workweek. Lexicon Consulting, Inc. provides consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Joshua D. Klein, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 590-5550 Fax: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net jklein@mahoney-law.net LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Watson Suit Seeks to Certify 3 TCPA Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the following Classes: -- Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) Class: "all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United States that were sent text messages from Lexus of Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, stating "Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, within four years of the filing of this action"; -- National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR) Class: "all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United States that were sent text messages from Lexus of Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, whom were registered on the National Do Not Call List more than thirty-two days before receiving messages from Lexus, stating "Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, within four years of the filing of this action"; and -- Internal Do Not Call (IDNC) Class: "all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United States that were sent text messages from Lexus of Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, stating "Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, while Lexus failed to institute procedures to maintain a list of persons who requested not to receive telemarketing calls, within four years of the filing of this action." This action arises from the the Defendant's allged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint on June 18, 2020, alleging that Defendant violated various provisions of the TCPA by sending text solicitations to customers of Honda of Manhattan. Lexus of Manhattan sells and services LEXUS vehicles in the greater New York NY area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JdL3uB at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Elizabeth Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com ea@zemellawllc.com LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Sues Over Defective Vehicle Parts -------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ljubljana Inter Auto d.o.o., a Slovenian Corporation, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10079 (C.D. Cal., November 2, 2020) arises from the Defendants' misrepresentations about their vehicles' engine and suspension without disclosing that they suffer from design defects, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Ms. Klein purchased in December 2016 a model year 2017 Macan S from a Porsche franchised car dealership in Los Angeles County. The car had an initial in-service date (the date of first registration for use on public roads) of April 2016, and an original MSRP of approximately $66,000. The purchase comes with a window sticker affixed to the window of the vehicle. Ms. Klein alleges that the window stickers are misleading to consumers because they misrepresent the nature of Porsche's product. None of the advertisements reviewed or representations received by Ms. Klein and members of the Class contained any disclosure that the vehicles suffer from two distinct sets of defects, the engine defect and the suspension defect, that will require that each Macan be repaired multiple times during its useful life at the expense of the vehicle's owner. As a result of Porsche's misrepresentations and concealment of the engine leaks and suspension defects, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered significant damages. These include but are not limited to significant costs incurred to repair the leaks, loss of use for the vehicles over the course of the lengthy repair process, and depreciation in the value of the vehicles as a result of them suffering from the defects. The Porsche Macan is a five-door luxury crossover SUV built and assembled in Leipzig, Germany by Defendant Porsche AG, utilizing certain parts furnished by Defendant Ljubljana, and distributed in the United States by Defendant Porsche NA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Carlos X. Colorado, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Facsimile: (213) 599-3370 E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com CC@XLAWX.com TG@XLAWX.com LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Suit Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOANCARE LLC, a Virginia corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-21837-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying Florida Classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and/or (b)(2): Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) CLASS: "all persons who are borrowers or co-borrowers on a residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare on property located in Florida who, since May 1, 2018, LoanCare charged, collected, or attempted to collect a processing fee for making a mortgage payment over the phone or online"; and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Class: "all persons who are borrowers or co-borrowers on a residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare on property located in Florida who, since May 1, 2016, LoanCare charged, collected, or attempted to collect a processing fee for making a mortgage payment over the phone or online" Excluded from the Florida Classes are LoanCare and its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees, any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.; 2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and 3. appointing The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC as Class Counsel. There is no dispute that since May 1, 2015, LoanCare has charged over 74,153 Florida borrowers more than $6.3 million in processing fees for the exact, same illegal processing fee. These fees are issued on homeowners for paying their mortgages by phone or via the website, however, these fees are unauthorized by all class member mortgages, and under Florida law. The sole purpose of these new charges is to provide LoanCare with a secret profit center to collect millions of dollars from their customers, says the complaint. LoanCare is a national provider of full service subservicing and interim subservicing to the mortgage industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TweWbz at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class are: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Barbara C. Lewis, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com barbara@moskowitz-law.com LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bazzini Sues Over 32% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE BAZZINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LOOP INDUSTRIES, INC., DANIEL SOLOMITA, and NELSON GENTILETTI, Case No. 7:20-cv-09031 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Loop securities between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020, inclusive. According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, 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 that: (i) Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (ii) Loop did not have the technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (iii) as a result, the Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's announced partnerships with Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited and thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that "Loop's scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company's process internally." The report also stated that "Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and industrially impossible,'" according to a former employee. Moreover, the report alleged that "Executives from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on 'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and complexities of its process," the suit says. On this news, the Company's stock price allegeldy fell $3.78 per share, or over 32%, to close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby damaging investors. Loop Industries, Inc. is a technology company that purports to own proprietary technology that depolymerizes no- and low-waste PET plastic and polyester fiber. The resulting material is used to create PET resin for food-grade packaging.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com LPS SERVICES: Alleman Seeks to Certify Security Officers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASHA ALLEMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LPS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04830-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) against the Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated: "all present and former full-time hourly security officers, and those with similar duties but other titles, employed by the Defendant during the period of September 15, 2017 through the final disposition of this matter"; b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email to the conditionally certified class; c. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a proposed notice informing such present and former employees of the pendency of this collective action and permitting them to opt into the case by signing and submitting an opt-in and consent form; d. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of such present and former employees that includes such employees' full names, their dates of employment, and their last known home addresses and personal email addresses, and their last telephone numbers; e. directing Defendant to file with the Court a Declaration within 7 days that the produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order; f. directing that the notice, in the form approved by the Court, be sent to such present and former employees within 14 days of the Plaintiff's receipt of the Roster, using the home and email addresses listed in the Roster; g. providing that duplicate copies of the notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of such present or former employees; and h. permitting Counsel for the Plaintiff to contact via telephone any putative class member whose notice is returned as undeliverable. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated were employed as non-exempt hourly security officers. The Defendant has a company-wide policy and practice of not paying the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all work performed which results in unpaid overtime, says the complaint. The Defendant provides "full-service private security" in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HE0fAb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com M.S.T.A.S. LTD: Duran Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M.S.T.A.S. LTD. /aka/ STAT MEDICAL ANSWERING SERVICE, and DAVID KUBE in his individual and official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-09228 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Spanish- speaking customer service representative. Ms. Duran began her employment on or around March of 2017 and presently resides in Jersey City, New Jersey. She was employed by the Defendants in New York, New York. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and the Class members overtime premium compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failed to furnish wage notices and accurate wage statements, made unlawful deductions for necessary headset equipment, and engaged in unlawful retaliation after she made complaints that she was not paid overtime premiums as required by the FLSA. M.S.T.A.S. Ltd., also known as Stat Medical Answering Service, is a medical answering service with call centers located in New York, New York and Portsmouth, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farva Jafri, Esq. JAFRI LAW FIRM 50 Evergreen Row Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (800) 593-7491 Facsimile: (224) 228-6721 - and - Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS 80 Broad St, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 Facsimile: (646) 349-2504 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Germal Balks at Unlawful Food Service Fee ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA MARIE GERMAK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., HHLP MIAMI BEACH ASSOCIATES, LLC, HHLP MIAMI BEACH LESSEE, LLC, and 3921 ) COLLINS AVENUE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-24533 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 3, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful inclusion of an automatic, mandatory gratuity or service charge of approximately 20 percent of the charges for food and beverages without providing the statutorily required notice and/or presenting the notice of an automatic gratuity or service charge in small, hard to read type. According to the complaint, on October 8, 2020, the Plaintiff dined at the Donna Mare restaurant at the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club, located in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff contends that when she was presented with a restaurant bill, she noticed that an automatic, mandatory service charge of 20 percent was included with the charges for food and beverage on the check, under the subtotal for the meal items. The Plaintiff did not see any notice on the restaurant's menu she reviewed that an automatic gratuity or service charge of any amount would be added to the customer's check. The Defendants' conduct violated the Florida Statute 509.214, and/or the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances, Sec. 8A-110.1(1) for the properties in Miami-Dade County, and the Florida Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the suit says. Marriott International, Inc., owns, operates, manages, franchises and/or controls approximately 483 hotel properties in the state of Florida, including the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club in Miami Beach, Florida. HHLP Miami Beach Associates, LLC, owns the property located at 3925 Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, Florida, where the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club is located. HHLP Miami Beach Lessee, LLC, operates, manages and/or controls food service establishments in Florida, including the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club. HHLP Miami Beach Lessee, LLC, maintains a Hotel license in connection with operations of the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club. 3921 Collins Avenue LLC owns, operates, manages and/or controls food service establishments in Florida, including the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club. 3921 Collins Avenue LLC maintains Permanent Food Service licenses in connection with operations of the Cadillac Hotel & Beach Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com - and - John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Edward A. Coleman, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 376-8450 Facsimile: (212) 376-8447 E-mail: ecoleman@lewissaul.com MATCO TOOLS: Fleming Suit Seeks to Certify Distributors Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLEMING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NMTC, INC. d/b/a MATCO TOOLS, a Delaware corporation, FORTIVE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00463-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 3, 2021 for an order certifying the following Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "all persons who signed franchise Distributor Agreements in the State of California and personally operated a Mobile Store at any time within four years preceding the filing of this action." The Plaintiff alleges that by classifying Distributors as independent contractors, Matco has avoided its obligations under California's labor protection laws. The Distributors have been denied overtime compensation for the overtime hours they have worked, reimbursement for necessary expenses they have incurred in operating their Mobile Stores, and meal and rest breaks required by California law. Distributors are also owed statutory penalties for the numerous violations. Mr. Fleming worked as a Matco Tools Distributor from July of 2012 to December 2018. Like all Matco California Distributors, he was classified as an independent contractor and bought his job by paying a franchise fee and signing a Distributorship Agreement. Under that agreement, Fleming was required to purchase a large inventory of tools from Matco which he was then obliged to sell to Matco's customers. Matco -- a tool manufacturer and distributor -- makes its money through the sale of tools to Distributors, while distributors' sole compensation is the difference between the amount they pay Matco for the tools and the receivables they are able to collect from Matco's customers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31vFBts at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Rukin, Esq. Jessica Riggin, Esq. Valerie Brender, Esq. RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 421-1800 Facsimile: (415) 421-1700 E-mail: prukin@rukinhyland.com jriggin@rukinhyland.com vbrender@rukinhyland.com - and - Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org MB RYE: Ahn Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- KYONG HO AHN, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MB RYE METRO NAIL, INC. d/b/a Rye Metro Nails; SUN YOUNG KIM a/k/a Cindy Kim, Case No. 7:20-cv-09198 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL as they failed to pay minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, failed to provide meal periods, failed to keep weekly payroll records, failed to provide time of hire wage notice, and failed to provide wage statements. From on or about March 5, 2018 to August 23, 2020, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a nail salon worker in Rye, New York. MB Rye Metro Nail, Inc., d/b/a Rye Metro Nails, is a nail salon company located in Rye, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 MDL 2836: Merck Appeals Ruling in Zetia Ezetimibe Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the multidistrict litigation styled In re ZETIA (EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:18-md2836, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, (i) granted the Merck Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs)' and the Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Glenmark Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs)' and the Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints. The matters before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by the Merck Defendants and the Glenmark Defendants against the DPPs' and the Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints. The Merck Defendants' Motion to Dismiss New Claims and Allegations in Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, to which the Glenmark Defendants joined in, seeks dismissal of the DPPs' Amended Complaint to the extent DPPs seek to recover under federal law for alleged overcharges on purchases made from any entity other than Glenmark or Merck. The Glenmark Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints, seeks dismissal of the Retailer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints in their entirety because they are founded on the existence of an implausible conspiracy involving Merck, Glenmark, and Par that is not supported by well-pled factual allegations, or, in the alternative, dismissal for lack of standing insofar as they seek damages flowing from the Retailers Plaintiffs' purchases of generic Zetia from Par, as well as dismissal of the Retailer Plaintiffs' per se claim in Count One with prejudice consistent with the Court's Aug. 9, 2019 opinion. The appellate case is captioned as FWK HOLDINGS, LLC; CESAR CASTILLO, INC., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; ROCHESTER DRUG COOPERATIVE, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; LAW ENFORCEMENT HEALTH BENEFITS INC.; PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 30 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; WALGREEN CO.; THE KROGER COMPANY; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; HEB GROCERY COMPANY L.P.; TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; THE UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION OF GREATER NEW YORK SECURITY BENEFIT FUND; THE RETIRED FIREFIGHTERS' SECURITY BENEFIT FUND OF THE UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; RITE AID CORPORATION; RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP.; CVS PHARMACY, INCORPORATED; ALL END PAYER PLAINTIFFS; PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. MERCK & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION; SCHERING PLOUGH CORPORATION; SCHERING CORPORATION; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., USA, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-2184, in the in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] MOBILE MINI DEALER: Daisy Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Daisy, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Daisy, Inc. v. Mobile Mini Dealer, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00017-SPC-MRM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 16, 2020, the lawsuit challenges the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Defendants have sent, and continue to send, unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the TCPA, including to those advertisements sent to the Plaintiff. The fax promotes the availability and quality of the Defendants' property, goods, or services. The appellate case is captioned as Daisy, Inc. v. Mobile Mini Dealer, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-14017, 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 or before November 9, 2020 as to Appellant Daisy, Inc.; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before November 23, 2020 as to Appellees.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAISY, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by: Ross M. Good, Esq. Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd Ste 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com Defendants-Appellees MOBILE MINI DEALER, INC., an Arizona corporation; MOBILE MINI, INC., a Delaware corporation; and MOBILE MINI I, INC. are represented by: Jason Daniel Joffe, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 777 S Flagler Dr Ste 1900 W West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6198 Telephone: (561) 650-7200 E-mail: jason.joffe@squirepb.com - and - Petrina A. McDaniel, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 1230 Peachtree St NE Ste 1700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 272-3207 E-mail: petrina.mcdaniel@squirepb.com MOBILEIRON INC: Bushansky Challenges Proposed $872M Sale to Ivanti ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHEN BUSHANSKY v. MOBILEIRON, INC., SIMON BIDDISCOMBE, KENNETH KLEIN, JAMES TOLONEN, JESSICA DENECOUR, TAE HEA NAHM, ANJALI JOSHI, and RISHI BAJAJ, Case No. 5:20-cv-07675 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated stockholders, arising from a proposed transaction pursuant to which MobileIron will be acquired by Ivanti, Inc. On September 28, 2020, MobileIron issued a press release announcing that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger dated September 26, 2020 to sell MobileIron to Ivanti. Under the terms of the agreement, each holder of MobileIron common stock will receive $7.05 in cash for each share of MobileIron common stock they own. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $872 million. On October 26, 2020, MobileIron filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that MobileIron stockholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc.; (ii) Barclays' potential conflicts of interest; and (iii) the background of the proposed transaction. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In short, unless remedied, MobileIron's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the suit says. Based in Mountain View, California, MobileIron Inc. develops and distributes software platforms for mobile devices. The Company provides software tools for device management, activity intelligence, and security. MobileIron offers its products and services worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 MOBIUS INC: Underpays Caregivers, Brignoni-Kann Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, LILIANA BRIGNONI-KANN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOBIUS INCORPORATED d/b/a ASSISTING HANDS HINDSDALE, and CHICAGOLAND SENIOR CARE, INC. d/b/a ASSISTING HANDS HOME CARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06480 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for their failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly-situated caregivers overtime wages. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants willfully failed to pay him and other similarly situated caregivers' overtime at the correct overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA overtime provisions Section 7 and IMWL overtime provisions Section 105/4a. The Defendants allegedly manipulated their hourly rate and hours they worked on their pay stub to give them the appearance that they were receiving overtime pay. Moreover, the Defendants failed to accurately record the actual hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated caregivers. Mobius Incorporated and Chicago Senior Care provide personal caregiving services to elderly or infirm individuals in their homes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 NATIONAL PACKAGING: Guzman Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Libna Guzman On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. National Packaging Services, Corporation, Case No. 19CV1722 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying herself as the class representative of the following three opt-out subclasses: (a) "all hourly non-exempt employees of NPS Corp. Who received shift premium pay for some but not all hours worked during at least one week during the time period of November 22, 2017 to the present"; (b) "all hourly non-exempt employees of NPS Corp. Who received annual bonus pay during the time period of November 22, 2017 to the present"; and (c) "all hourly non-exempt employees of NPS Corp. who worked on a holiday either during a workweek in which he or she received shift premium pay for some but not all of her hours worked during the week; or during a year in which he or she received an annual bonus"; 2. granting her motion for class certification; and 3. granting such other and further relief. National Packaging manufactures miscellaneous converted paperboard products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31Uyhrj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: 414 271-4500 Facsimile: 414 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com NEOVASC INC: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over 42% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE LUIS GONZALEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NEOVASC INC., FRED COLEN, and CHRISTOPHER CLARK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09313 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between November 1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive. According to the complaint, in December 2018, the Company filed a Q-Sub submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that contained safety and efficacy results from Neovasc's clinical studies of its products for cardiovascular diseases, including the Tiara technology and the Reducer, as well as supporting data from peer-reviewed journals. On February 20, 2019, Neovasc announced that, despite "Breakthrough Device Designation," the FDA review team recommended that the Company collect further pre-market blinded data prior to submitting a Pre-Market Approval (PMA) application. On November 1, 2019, the Company announced that it would submit a PMA application for the Reducer without gathering further evidence, against the FDA's recommendation. Neovasc claimed that "the clinical evidence already available will be sufficient to not further delay the availability of this Breakthrough medical device for the treatment of U.S. patients." On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.77, or 42%, to close at $1.06 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class period, 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 results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study for the Reducer, contained imbalances in missing information present in the control group versus the treatment group, including significant missing information for secondary endpoints but none for the primary endpoint; (2) that the imbalance in missing information indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in additional data collection; (3) that blinding is critical when studying a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (6) that, as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely to be approved without additional clinical data; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Neovasc Inc. operates as a medical device company. The Company develops and markets products for the transcatheter treatment of mitral valve disease. Neovasc serves customers in Canada and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 NHR HUMAN: Hernandez Seeks Collective Status for FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORTEGA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. NHR HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC, NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES, LLC, SUGAR HILL CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, MARGARET GROSSMAN, and JEREMY SALZBERG, Case No. 1:20-cv-03109-PGG-DCF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on: "all current and former non-exempt employees, including all porters, handymen, supers, and maintenance persons employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint"; 2. approving the distribution of the notice of this FLSA action to Covered Employees, and including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; 3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 4. approving the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be sent directly to Plaintiff's counsel; 5. directing the Defendants, within 10 days of the Court's Order, to produce in Excel format the names, social security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees; 6. approving the posting of the notice, along with the consent forms, in the Defendants' places of business where Covered Employees are employed, by Plaintiff's counsel at any time during regular business hours; and 7. approving equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations (1) between the dates of March 20, 2020 and July 6, 2020, (2) between from July 28, 2020 to September 4, 2020, and (3) until such time that the Plaintiff is able to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. On April 17, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint against the Defendants, seeking unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff brought the FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all non-exempt construction workers employed by the Defendants within the last six years before the filing of the Complaint. The Complaint seeks to recover damages because the Defendants (1) failed to pay Covered Employees the proper wages due to time shaving, including overtime compensation under the FLSA and NYLL, (2) failed to pay a spread of hours premium, (3) failed to provide statutory notice as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff was hired December 10, 2018 by the Defendants to work and maintain the Defendants' various buildings and apartments. He was employed until October 11, 2019. During his employment by the Defendants, he Plaintiff suffered from wage and hour violations. He also personally observed other workers employed at Defendants suffering from the same policies, says the complaint. The Defendants operate and manage a series of buildings and apartment sites across New York under the trade name "New Holland Residences." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35uKWSY at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class are: C. K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 NIKE INC: Bunn ADA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CALI BUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No. CGC20585683, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 22, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07403 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has implemented a company-wide policy applicable to all of its stores in California and throughout the United States of requiring its employees to wear masks when assisting customers. The Defendant's employees comply with that policy. The Defendant provides its employees with masks featuring the Nike trademark swoosh. However, the masks that Nike provides its employees are made of opaque cloth or other material that covers the employees' mouths and block their facial expressions, and therefore interfere with the ability of Nike's deaf and hard of hearing customers, including the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated to her, to hear and/or communicate with those Nike employees. Nike, Inc. designs, develops, and markets athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, and accessory products for men, women, and children. The Company sells its products worldwide to retail stores, through its own stores, subsidiaries, and distributors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rubin, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: mrubin@altber.com The Defendant is represented by Austin Schwing, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Telephone: (415) 393-8210 Facsimile: (415) 374-8458 E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com NITIN & PARDEEP: Faces Camara Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ANTONIO LIRA CAMARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NITIN & PARDEEP CORPORATION (D/B/A KING OF INDIA), KIRAN KUMARI (A.K.A. MOHAMMED), and SANTOSH KUMARI, Case No. 1:20-cv-05390 (E.D.N.Y., November 6, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping, failed to provide wage statement provisions, and failed to reimburse the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of the trade" required to perform his job. Mr. Lira was employed by the Defendants as a laborer and a cleaner at the restaurant located in Bellerose Manor, New York from approximately 2011 until on or about September 30, 2020. Nitin & Pardeep Corporation owns, operates, or controls an Indian restaurant in Bellerose Manor, New York under the name "King of India."[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 NORVAX LLC: Faces Hossfeld TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOSSFELD and CHRIS BILEK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NORVAX, LLC and GOHEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06566 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 4, 2020) contends that the Defendants promote and market their merchandise, in part, by placing autodialed telemarketing or prerecorded-voice calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs allege that they received autodialed or prerecorded-voice calls from the Defendants, attempting to sell health related goods and services, in the past four years. Neither Plaintiff requested or otherwise consented to receive such calls, and Plaintiff Hossfeld's number was on the National Do Not Call Registry when he received them. The Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive relief for themselves and other similarly situated persons. GoHealth sells UnitedHealthcare insurance policy.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com NURIA'S RESTAURANTE: Hernandez Appeals FLSA Suit Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Orosco Hernandez, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Electronic Text Order dated October 9, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled YOHANA ABIGAIL OROSCO HERNANDEZ, JUANA GARCIA REYES, and MARLON E. HERNANDEZ,, the Plaintiffs, vs. NURIA'S RESTAURANTE SALVADORENO INC. (D/B/A NURIA'S RESTAURANT), VINA DEL MAR RESTAURANT SALVADORENO, CORP. (D/B/A VINA DEL MAR RESTAURANT), NURIA REYES, and DONALD OVIEDO, the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-6577, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control two restaurants, located at 151-28 81 Street Howard Beach, New York, 11414 under the name "Nuria's Restaurant". The Plaintiffs have been employed as a waitress, waiter, cook, and dishwasher at the restaurants located at 138-16 Jamaica Ave, Jamaica, NY 11435 and 89-52 146 th St, Jamaica, NY 11435. The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit says. The appellate case is captioned as Orosco Hernandez v. Nuria's Restaurante Salvadoren, Case No. 20-3796, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Yohana Abigail Orosco Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Juana Garcia Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; and Marlon E. Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jordan Edward Gottheim, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (631) 921-5568 E-mail: jgottheim@faillacelaw.com Defendants-Appellees Nuria's Restaurante Salvadoreno Inc., DBA Nuria's Restaurant; Vina Del Mar Restaurant Salvadoreno, Corp., DBA Via Del Mar Restaurant; Nuria Reyes; and Donald Oviedo are represented by: Daniel Knox, Esq. KNOX LAW GROUP, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 239-1114 Facsimile: (917) 398-1217 NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC., d/b/a Nutrafol, Case No. 1:20-cv-08817-AJN (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2020) asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law for the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, www.nutrafol.com, the last occurring on or about October 21, 2020, Mr. Fischler encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website, as well as to the goods and services of the Defendant's meal delivery and nutritional counseling services. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc. offers medicinal products. The Company provides nutraceutical supplement for hair growth for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEYLEE LAWRENCE, COURTNEY BRACCIA, BRIA WARNER, and WENDY ROSADO Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery and SERGEY VOSKIN, M.D., Case No. 1:18-cv-08649-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the case as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, consisting of: "all current and former receptionists and patient coordinators employed by NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery ("GOALS") and/or predecessor companies from September 25, 2015 who were not paid overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay, for all hours in a workweek in excess of 40"; 2. directing the defendants to provide to the plaintiffs, within 10 days following the date of the Order to be entered herein, the names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of employment and job positions/titles of all for all individuals within the definition of the FLSA collective action, in readable digital form in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Word format; 3. approving the form and content of the Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join; 4. directing the plaintiffs, within 14 days following the defendants' disclosure of the collective contact information, to distribute and transmit the Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join and Consent to Sue to all individuals within the definition of the FLSA collective action, by first class U.S. Mail and electronically by personal and business email; 5. approving and setting a 60-day period, to begin on the date that the Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join and Consent to Sue is first sent, for each individual within the definition of the FLSA collective action, to opt in to the case; and 6. providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the collective FLSA Action is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e5QGGn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC 23 Green Street, Suite 105 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 458-1010 E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com OAKLAND, CA: Class of Mobility-Disabled Renters Sought ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN SMITH and MITCH JESERICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, a public entity, Case No. 4:19-cv-05398-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 16, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying the proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class of: "all Oakland renters who have mobility disabilities and thus need accessible rental units in the City of Oakland;" 2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and 3. appointing their counsel, Disability Rights Advocates and Public Interest Law Project, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs, suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and corresponding California law, have requested that the City reasonably modify its Rent Adjustment Program ("RAP") to encompass accessible units built after the current January 1, 1983 cut-off date for City rent control -- a request the City has denied. The Plaintiffs seek only to ensure that they and other class members get what the City's nondisabled renters already have: a meaningful opportunity to access the protections from excessive rent increases that the Program provides, without having to endure the hardship of life in an inaccessible unit as a condition of coverage, the complaint says. The City of Oakland's RAP, colloquially known as "rent control," provides tens of thousands of City tenants with stability and protection from displacement, by setting a limit on how much the rent for their homes can increase each year. However, people with disabilities who need accessible housing have been denied an equal opportunity to access these same protections for decades, because few if any of the City's rent-controlled units are accessible. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mlDRKZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Betouliere, Esq. Thomas Zito, Esq. Shira Tevah, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 - and - Michael Rawson, Esq. Craig Castellanet, Esq. Melissa A. Morris, Esq. PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT 449 15th Street, Suite 301 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9794 Facsimile: (510) 891-9727 OLE MEXICAN: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Tortillas ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN DE DIOS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLE MEXICAN FOODS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02324 (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2020) contends that the Defendant has marketed and sold its La Banderita tortilla products with labeling, packaging, and advertising that lead consumers to believe that the products are made in Mexico, when in fact, they are not. For the Defendant to accomplish this, the products use the Mexican flag on the front and center of the package, Spanish phrases like "El Sabor de Mexico!" (meaning "A taste of Mexico"), and a logo that displays the Mexican flag with the word "Authentic." The tortilla products referred in the case are La Banderita Burrito Grande, La Banderita Sabrosisimas Corn, La Banderita Sabrosísimas Flour, and La Banderita Whole Wheat Fajita. Because of this, consumers value tortilla products that are authentically made in Mexico. Had Plaintiff and other consumers known that the products were not made in Mexico, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for them. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers have suffered an injury-in-fact due to the Defendant's deceptive practices, the suit alleges. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc. manufactures and sells Mexican food products. The Company offers corn tortillas, bread, cheese, tostadas, sausages, cheese dip, snacks, pastry, and other food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com rglezakos@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com OP REALTY: Motion for Class Certification Denied in Liu Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAOHUI LIU, LELAN XIONG, YAGUANG LIU, LILI CAI, CHUNRU SONG, YUNRONG JIANG, MEIHUNA LIU, QIYUAN HUANG, QI WANG, ZIQIANG ZHAO, HAO MAO, YONGPING ZHAO, YUE FU, XI PENG, WEI SONG, GUANQUN CHI, YOUJIA MA, JIANJUN LI, YUAN WANG, NING CAI, CONG XU, FANG ZHAO, WEI NING, LING LI, LI ZHANG, XIA ZHANG, LIN LIANG, SONG DENG, JIAN LIN, MIN LIN, YING ZHANG, JIANQIN CHEN, GUOYE CHEN and HUAIYANG FU, v. OP REALTY PARTNERS, LLC, OP CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT, LLC and MAX P CAWAL, Case No. 6:19-cv-02041-GAP-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of: "more than 100 Chinese citizens who purchased property from and leased property to Defendants." The Court said, "The putative class members here clearly have strong interests in controlling the course of litigation as virtually the entire class has commenced a direct suit against Defendants. A class action is not the superior mechanism to resolve the claims of the putative class members because nearly the entire class has filed individual lawsuits against Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)." The Plaintiffs are 34 individuals who reside in China and executed condo purchase and leasing agreements with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants coordinated with Chinese realty firms to sell condos to the putative class members based on the representation that the Defendants would lease back the condos. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants ceased making lease payments in late 2017. The Plaintiffs seek recover damages stemming from the alleged breach of the lease agreements and alleged fraud perpetuated by the Defendants. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31Ofa24 at no extra charge.[CC] ORGANIC PASTURES: Mislabels Dairy Products as Organic, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Nilchian, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Organic Pastures Dairy Company LLC, Case No. 30-2020-01166856-CU-MC-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Oct. 23, 2020), challenges the Defendant's deceptive advertising and business practices with regard to false and misleading promotion of its raw dairy products, including "Cream Top - whole Raw Milk"; "Original Raw Kefir"; "Gold Raw Kefir", in violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff contends that based on the false and misleading advertisements, he and others similarly situated purchased the Defendant's mislabeled product. The Defendant falsely and misleadingly promotes its milk products as being organic and from pasture fed cows. In reality, the Defendant's milk comes from cows that do not have a 100% organic diet and thus the milk is not organic. Furthermore, the Defendant's cows are fed 60-70% on imported, non-organic hay instead of grazing from a pasture, as Defendant misleads the consumer to believe, the complaint says. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Anaheim, California. The Defendant manufactures and/or distributes various products, including several types of dairy products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com OUT TECH: Voeks Alleges Abusive Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN VOEKS, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of JULIE VOEKS, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OUT TECH., INC. d/b/a BUREAU OF ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01613-BHL (E.D. Wis. October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Wisconsin Consumer Act, and the state common law. On or around April 23, 2020, the Defendant mailed to the Plaintiff a debt collection letter addressed to "Julie Francis Voeks" regarding an alleged debt owed to "Select Medical Corporation." The alleged debts were incurred as the result of a transaction for personal medical services with an agreement to defer payment. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an envelope containing a window hole or a transparent, "glassine" window displaying her name and address and the Defendant's return address. Also printed immediately below the Defendant's return address and in bold italic font, is the language, "PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL." The use of such extraneous text on an envelope containing a dunning letter, or visible on the front of the envelope through a window is a violation of the federal and state laws. Out Tech., Inc., d/b/a Bureau of Account Management, is a collection agency that uses mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com OXNARD, CA: Alvarez Suit Seeks Class Action Status -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALVAREZ; KAREEM DAVIS; ETHEL HERRERA; AND CHAD SHOEMAKER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF OXNARD, a California municipality; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08044-PSG-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 21, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action 2. determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) as common issues of law and fact predominate over any individual issues and the class action method is superior to individual cases; 3. certifying the following Class and Subclasses: The Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees of the City of Oxnard covered by the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Oxnard and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 501, AFL-CIO, for the period of August 5, 2015 through the date of class certification who worked standby"; and Sub-Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees of the City of Oxnard covered by the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Oxnard and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 501, AFL-CIO, for the period of August 5, 2015 through the date of class certification who worked standby from August 5, 2015 to January 22, 2019"; 4. finding themselves to be adequate representatives of the class members and certifying them as the class representatives; 5. finding their counsel, namely David P. Myers, Jason Hatcher, and Morgan B. Good, of The Myers Law Group, A.P.C., as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel; and 6. authorizing their Counsel to send Class Notice pursuant to Rule 23 (in a form to be approved by the Court after a conference with counsel for the Defendant). The Notice shall permit class members to opt-out of the class if they so desire within 30 days of the mailing of the notice by sending a written request signed by the class member which lists the class member's full name, address, telephone number, and last four digits of the class member's social security number. Notice shall be provided to the class via U.S. Mail to the last known address reflected on the Defendant's records. The Defendant shall cooperate with Class Counsel in preparing a computerized mailing list as required. The Plaintiffs allege the City promises Contractual Controlled Standby (CCS) Pay, under the Memorandum of Understandings (MOU), when the Plaintiffs and Class members were (i) required to carry a cell phone at which they could be reached and (ii) expected to report to work within 30 minutes or less for standby shifts. CCS Pay constitutes minimum wage or overtime pay when applicable. However, the Plaintiffs allege the City breached its promise by only paying $1.25 per standby hour when Plaintiffs and the Class were required to (i) carry a cell phone where he/she could be reached and (ii) expected to report to work within 30 minutes or less. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members worked in the Public Works Department for the City. They performed essential and emergency services in the Fleet, Facilities, Parks, and/or Street Divisions for the City of Oxnard. Oxnard is a seaside city west of Los Angeles, in California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oyHyit at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are: David P. Myers, Esq. Jason Hatcher, Esq. Morgan Good, Esq. THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 919-2027 Facsimile: (888) 375-2102 E-mail: dmyers@myerslawgroup.com jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com mgood@myerslawgroup.com P & L INNOVATIONS: Chen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- YANG CHEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P & L INNOVATIONS, INC., d/b/a Mugu D/b/a Jen's Chinese Food; CHUN MEI LI a/k/a Chunmei Li, a/k/a Chun Mei Li, and a/k/a Chunmei Li Wang, JUN MIN WANG a/k/a Junmin Wang, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05264 (E.D.N.Y., November 1, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deliveryman from on or about December 3, 2005 to April 3, 2019. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not exempt under the federal and state laws requiring employers to pay employees' overtime. However, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at least the New York minimum wage for each hour worked and their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. In order to mitigate liability for their wage violations, the Defendants willfully failed to keep full and accurate records. In addition, the Defendants also failed to furnished any notice of their use of tip credit and to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees with time of hire notice reflecting their true rates of pay and payday as well as paystub. P & L Innovations, Inc. is a Chinese restaurant owned and operated by Chun Me Li and Jun Min Wang. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 PACIFIC COAST ENERGY: Appeal Filed in Evergreen Capital Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Pacific Coast Energy Company filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Evergreen Capital Management v. Pacific Coast Energy Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07561-MWF-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 20, 2020. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract against the Trustee and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against PCEC, on behalf of Trust Unitholders of Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust"). The complaint alleges that PCEC has improperly deprived the Trust and Trust Unitholders of revenue by incorrectly calculating current asset retirement obligations ("ARO") based on future oil and well abandonment costs in violation of GAAP and industry practices. The lawsuit further contends that the Trustee has been grossly negligent by taking inadequate actions to respond to PCEC's conduct. The appellate case is captioned as Evergreen Capital Management v. Pacific Coast Energy Company, et al., Case No. 20-80151, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent EVERGREEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com Defendant-Petitioner PACIFIC COAST ENERGY COMPANY LP is represented by: Elizabeth Price Foley, Esq. David Boris Rivkin, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1619 E-mail: efoley@bakerlaw.com drivkin@bakerlaw.com - and - William Wayne Oxley, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Telephone: (310) 442-8894 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: woxley@bakerlaw.com PACIFIC MARITIME: Andrikos Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evagelos Andrikos, Bryant Burns, Michael Olvera, Paul Ruiz, and Jerry Vrbanovic, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated non-exempt former and former employees, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, INC., APM TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC, APS STEVEDORING, LLC, BENICIA PORT TERMINAL COMPANY, CERES TERMINALS INCORPORATED, CRESCENT CITY MARINE WAYS & DRYDOCK COMPANY, INC., 23 EAGLE MARINE SERVICES, LTD., EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., HARBOR INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, INNOVATIVE TERMINAL SERVICES INC., INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., KINDER MORGAN BULK, TERMINALS LLC, LBCT, LLC, MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION, MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION OF LOS ANGELES, MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC., MATSON TERMINALS, INC., METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., PACIFIC CRANE MAINTENANCE COMPANY LP, PACIFIC RO-RO STEVEDORING, LLC, PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS LP, PORT MAINTENANCE GROUP, SSA MARINE, INC., SSA TERMINALS, LLC, TERMINAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, TRANSPAC TERMINAL SERVICES, LLC, TRAPAC, LLC, YUSEN TERMINALS, INC. And DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-10421-GW-J (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a Class comprised of and defined as: "all current and former hourly employees who performed work for any or all of the defendants at any of the ports in California and were paid on an hourly basis from August 22, 2015, to the present"; and 2. certifying the following subclasses: A. Reporting Time Subclasses. "all Casuals who reported to a Dispatch 16 Hall on one or more days during the class period, did not get assigned a job on one or more of those days, and were not paid Reporting Time wages." (1) Casuals at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall; (2) Casuals at the San Francisco, San Diego, Stockton, Port Hueneme or West Sacramento Dispatch Halls. B. Pre-Shift Wages Subclasses: "all Longshoremen, Casuals and Marine Clerks who reported to a Dispatch Hall on one or more days during the class period, received a job assignment, and then had to travel to the work location from the Dispatch Hall, and were not paid wages for the time spent waiting for the job assignment or traveling to the job location." (1) Longshoremen at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall; (2) Longshoremen at the San Francisco, San Diego, Stockton, Port Hueneme or West Sacramento Dispatch Halls; (3) Casuals at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall; (4) Casuals at the San Francisco, San Diego, Stockton, Port Hueneme or West Sacramento Dispatch Halls; (5) Marine Clerks at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall. C. Mileage Reimbursement Subclasses. "all Longshoremen, Casuals and Marine Clerks who reported to a Dispatch Hall on one or more days during the class period, received a job assignment, and then had to drive to the work location from the Dispatch Hall, and were not reimbursed for mileage expenses." (1) Longshoremen at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall; (2) Longshoremen at the San Francisco, San Diego, Stockton, Port Hueneme or West Sacramento Dispatch Halls; (3) Casuals at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall; (4) Casuals at the San Francisco, San Diego, Stockton, Port Hueneme or West Sacramento Dispatch Halls; (5) Marine Clerks at the Long Beach Dispatch Hall. D. Wage Statement Subclass: "all hourly employees who worked for the defendants during the class period and received an itemized wage statement during the class period. E. Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) Card Expense Subclass: "all employees who worked for the defendants during the class period, who paid a fee for a TWIC card in order to gain admittance to a port, and who were not reimbursed. F. Unfair Competition Subclass: "all employees from Subclasses A, B, C, D, or E who suffered damage as a result of any of those specific claims."; and G. Terminated Employee Waiting Time Subclass: "all employees from Subclasses A, B, C or D who suffered damages as a result of any of those specific claims and as a result of that were not properly paid all wages on termination or within hours thereof." The Plaintiffs' proposed class is a group of 21,761 hourly employees who work at California ports for the Defendants. PMA is the agent of other 33 defendants, which they refer to as "member companies," and on their behalf PMA negotiates collective bargaining agreements with the respective dockworker unions and then manages the work force as described infra. These member companies employ the class members to work at various ports throughout California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HF5ek4 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs: Evagelos Andrikos, Bryant Burns, Michael Olvera, Paul Ruiz and Jerry Vrbanovic are: Heather McMillan, Esq. Daniel P. Stevens, Esq. Lizeth Perales, Esq. STEVENS & McMILLAN 335 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 730-1000 Facsimile: (714) 730-1067 E-mail: heather@scmclaw.com ken@scmclaw.com liz@scmclaw.com PARTSBASE INC: Court Approves Settlement in Sullivan FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN SULLIVAN, et al., v. PARTSBASE, INC., et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-80630-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order: 1. approving the Settlement Agreement, including the separate Mutual General Release and settlement amount for attorneys' fees and costs, as a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the claims at issue; 2. dismissing this action with prejudice; 3. directing the Clerk of Court to close this case; and 4. denying as moot all pending motions. The Court finds that the Parties' Settlement Agreement, including the separate Mutual General Release, reflects a reasonable compromise over contested litigation to resolve bona fide disputes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Pursuant to the Parties' request, the Court will retain jurisdiction for a period of 60 days to enforce the terms of their Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff initiated this action on April 13, 2020, alleging violations of overtime provisions of the FLSA. Four opt-in Plaintiffs have since joined the lawsuit. A copy of the Court's Order approving settlement and dismissing case is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Jgt1rD at no extra charge.[CC] PEOPLE'S UNITED: Ianello Balks at Loan Discharge Fee ---------------------------------------------------- CRISTINA M. IANELLO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEOPLE'S UNITED FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 20-2471B (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 28, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unlawful issuance of loan payoff statements on Massachusetts mortgage loans. On May 20, 2020, Ms. Ianello made a written request asking People's United to provide a written payoff statement for her loan for June 12, 2020 for property address 2 Old Jarvis A venue, Holyoke, Massachusetts. The written request asked People's United to specify an amount certain as of June 12, 2020 which will pay off any and all indebtedness secured by the mortgage. According to the complaint, the Defendant provided a payoff statement to the Plaintiff that did not comply with Massachusetts law because, among other things, the statement included a CSC Discharge Fee. As a result of the foregoing unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and the willful and intentional conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Class incurred damages which include but are not limited to the additional amount of money that the Defendant charged, collected, recovered or required to pay in order for the Plaintiff and the Class to obtain a discharge. People's United Financial, Inc. is an American bank holding company that owns People's United Bank. The bank operates 403 branches in Connecticut, southeastern New York State, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP 273 State Street, 2nd Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 455-1730 Facsimile: (413) 455-1594 E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com PEPPERIDGE: 'All Butter Loaf Cake' Label Deceptive, Kamara Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Hawa Kamara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-09012 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2020), alleges that the Pepperidge Farm brand contains shortening ingredient other than Butter as prominently displayed on the Product's front label. According to the complaint, Pepperidge manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells crackers purported to be made only with butter as a shortening ingredient under its Pepperidge Farm brand. The Product is available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and is sold in sizes including boxes of 9.75 OZ and the crackers are prominently and exclusively identified and described as "Golden Butter -- Crackers [lower left corner]" and "distinctively delicious crackers." The Plaintiff contends that the representations as "All Butter Loaf Cake" are misleading because butter is not the sole shortening ingredient in the Product. Though the Product contains butter, it also contains vegetable oils, as shortening ingredients. She adds that the Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed to -- and does -- deceive, mislead, and defraud her and consumers. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is an sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.64 for 9.75 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the Product if it were represented in a non-misleading way. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers like her. Hawa Kamara purchased the Product on one or more occasions, during the relevant period, including 2019 and 2020, at stores including but not necessarily limited to, Target, 112 W 34th St, New York, and among other times, purchased the Product between June and October 2020.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 260-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hogan 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 motion to dismiss the complaint in the putative class action suit initiated by Patrick Hogan remains pending. On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of the company's (PPC's) stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive and seeks compensatory damages. On April 4, 2017, the Colorado Court appointed another stockholder, George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Colorado Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Colorado Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Colorado Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against the same defendants, based in part on the Indictment. On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 31, 2020, and defendants filed their reply on September 20, 2020. The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss is 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. PIZZA ON STONE: Faces Velazquez Suit Over Tip Misappropriation -------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER VELAZQUEZ and RAMIRO TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PIZZA ON STONE, LLC d/b/a ADRIENNE'S PIZZABAR, PETER POULAKAKOS, individually, NICK ANGELIS, individually, and FRANK CASANO, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-09087 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020), seeks to recover minimum wages, tip misappropriation, unlawful deductions, and other damages for the Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers, consisting of servers, runners, bussers, bartenders, barbacks, and delivery workers, who work or have worked at Adrienne's Pizzabar located at 54 Stone Street, New York, New York. Owned and operated by Pizza on Stone, LLC, Peter Poulakakos, Nick Angelis, and Frank Casano, Adrienne's Pizzabar has been a New York City staple since its inception in 2004. Adrienne's Pizzabar is a part of HPH Restaurant Group, a management group, which includes well-known New York City restaurants such as, Pier A, Oyster House at Pier A, Underdog, Harry's Italian, Harry's Cafe and Steak, Nicks's Pizzabar, Ulysses' Folk House, Bathtub Gin, The Dead Rabbit, Le District, The Growler, and Vintry Wine & Whiskey. The Plaintiffs contend that despite Adrienne's Pizzabar's emphasis on being an all-encompassing restaurant service, the Defendants have failed to properly compensate Tipped Workers who work or have worked for them throughout the relevant time period. The Defendants paid them and other Tipped Workers at or below the "tipped" minimum wage rate. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have not satisfied the strict requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the New York Labor Law by which they could take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. David J. Sack, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 PORSCHE AG: Fajardo Alleges Emission System Cheating Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- MALLEN FAJARDO, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, FRANK COHEN, ANDREW KAVAN, MARK KOVALETZ, CECIL ROBINSON, SANDER SHADY, WILLIAM VENTURINO, and JOHN VORISEK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., and VOLKSWAGEN AG, Case No. 3:20-cv-07473-JCS (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020), is a class action complaint exposing emissions and fuel economy cheating scheme within the Volkswagen corporate family. As with the "Clean Diesel" cases and the "Audi CO2" gasoline cases that followed, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants manipulated testing results for a decade's worth of Porsche-branded vehicles sold in the United States, causing those vehicles to emit more pollution and obtain worse fuel economy on the road than in regulatory testing, the complaint says. The broad strokes of this latest scheme were first published in the German press reports, which revealed that the German regulatory agency (KBA) was investigating Porsche for manipulating the emissions systems of certain vehicles. Following the reports, the Plaintiffs conducted their own extensive investigation and expert testing that both confirms and expands upon publicly reported allegations. This investigation has revealed an extensive scheme implemented with the common goal of artificially decreasing emissions test results and increasing fuel economy results to evade fleet-wide and vehicle-specific emissions regulations and to deceive Plaintiffs and the Class about the true nature of Porsche's vehicles. The Plaintiffs' investigation shows that this scheme manifested in at least three ways, and affects hundreds of thousands of Porsche vehicles sold in the United States. The three prongs of the scheme are: -- The Defendants physically altered the hardware (the gears connecting the drive 27 shaft and rear axle) and manipulated the software of testing vehicles, rendering such vehicles different from the vehicles actually produced and sold to consumers. -- The Defendants installed secret software in certain vehicles' Electronic Control Unit ("ECU") that again caused the vehicles to run cleaner and obtain better fuel economy during testing than during real-world driving. -- The Defendants falsely attested that certain vehicles' high-performance driving mode, known as Sport Plus, met emissions requirements, when in reality, the vehicles exceeded legal limits of certain pollutants in Sport Plus mode, and thus were illegal to import or sell in the United States. This manipulation was deceptive, illegal, and material to regulators and consumers alike. The scheme was also devised by the same companies, in the same time period, and in the same places as the "Clean Diesel" and "Audi CO2" emissions and fuel economy fraud, to which this plot bears a striking resemblance, the Plaintiff says. Through this action, the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class seek to enjoin Porsche's deceptive conduct and recover the economic damages it caused. Porsche AG designs, develops, manufacturers, and sells luxury automobiles. Porsche AG is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VW AG. Porsche AG engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, and installed the software on the Class Vehicles and exported these vehicles with the knowledge and understanding that they would be sold throughout the United States. Porsche AG also reviewed and approved the marketing and advertising campaigns designed to sell the Porsche-branded Class Vehicles. Porsche America is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 1 Porsche Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Porsche America is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Porsche AG, and it engages in business, including the advertising, marketing and sale of Porsche automobiles, in all 50 states. Volkswagen AG ("VW AG") is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Wolfsburg, Germany. VW AG is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, and is in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling automobiles. VW AG is the parent corporation of Porsche AG.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq. David S. Stellings, Esq. Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq. Kara I. McBride, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415 956-1000 Facsimile: 415 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com pgnguyen@lchb.com dstellings@lchb.com wdunlavey@lchb.com kmcbride@lchb.com PORSCHE CARS: Manipulates Emissions Testing Results, Schubert Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Schubert, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, INC., and VOLKSWAGEN AG, Case No. 3:20-cv-07589 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have manipulated federal and California emissions testing for Porsche cars in the U.S. market. The Plaintiff contends that despite Volkswagen's promises to "come clean" and to be honest about its past mistakes in 2015, its subsidiary Porsche apparently persisted in concealing its emission-testing deception for its high-end 911 and Panamera vehicles. Five years after the 2015 scandal surrounding Volkswagen Group's installation of "Defeat Devices" in Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche diesel vehicles that unlawfully concealed from regulators and consumers the true and illegally-high levels of pollutants these vehicles emitted, and following the discovery of a similar device in Audi gasoline vehicles, another "Defeat Device" embedded in numerous Porsche vehicles during emissions testing has just come to light. New reporting reveals that Porsche deliberately modified the transmissions of test vehicles so that they emitted fewer pollutants during testing than the actual cars it sold to consumers would emit during normal use, says the complaint. As a direct and proximate result of Porsche's breach, the Plaintiff Schubert and Class members have been damaged. They reasonably relied on Porsche's warranty in purchasing and continuing to drive Class Vehicles. They were unaware of Porsche's emissions-testing manipulation. Had they known the truth, they would not have acted as they did. They would not have purchased vehicles whose high performance was only made possible through emissions fraud, or would have paid less for them, the Plaintiff alleges. Porsche is a German automobile manufacturer specializing in high-performance sports cars, SUVs and sedans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com - and - Jayne Conroy, Esq. Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: Jconroy@simmonsfirm.com jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com PRECIGEN INC: Faces Chen Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- GANG CHEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRECIGEN, INC. F/K/A INTREXON CORPORATION, RANDAL J. KIRK, and RICK L. STERLING, Case No. 5:20-cv-07442 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 10, 2017 and March 2, 2020, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the 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 Class Period begins on May 10, 2017, when the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC which announced the Company's financial and operating results for the quarter ending March 31, 2017 (the "May 8-K"). On March 2, 2020, during after-market hours, the Company filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2019 (the "2019 10-K"). The 2019 10-K stated the following regarding the SEC's investigation: "In October 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC informing the Company of a non-public, fact-finding investigation concerning the Company's disclosures regarding its methane bioconversion platform." Following the filing of the 2019 Form 10-K, the Company's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 17.14%, to close at $3.24 per share on March 3, 2020. On September 25, 2020, the SEC announced Cease-and-Desist Order. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members (The Plaintiffs) have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiffs did not discover, and a reasonably diligent plaintiff would not have discovered, facts sufficient to adequately plead the Defendants' scienter until after the publication of the Cease-and-Desist Order on September 25, 2020, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. Precigen operates in the synthetic biology field and creates biologically-based products. On February 1, 2020, the Company changed its name to "Precigen, Inc." and its stock symbol to "PGEN." The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com PREMIER PLUMBING: Class Certified in Wickles' Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WICKLES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PREMIER PLUMBING AND LEAK, LLC, and KENNETH MOON, Case No. 1:20cv44-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert L. Hinkle entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a class consisting of: "Plumbers' assistants and plumbers who were employed by Premier Plumbing and Leak, LLC, during the period from January 1, 2018 to the present." The Court said, "This order grants Mr. Wickles's motion and conditionally certifies a collective class on the claim that he was not properly paid overtime (count one in the amended complaint). The class includes plumbers' assistants and plumbers employed by Premier Plumbing and Leak, LLC going back to 2018. Mr. Wickles asserts the period should go back further, to at least three years before the date of this order. But the affidavits of other employees indicate Premier Plumbing has only been in existence since 2018, and Mr. Wickles was hired that year. The durational period for the class with be from January 1, 2018 to the present. The attorneys must confer on the contents of notice to potential class members and on the procedures for giving notice, including any need for further disclosures on the identity of potential class members. By November 13, 2020, the parties must file a joint report on these issues -- or, in the absence of agreement, unilateral reports." This case arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff was a plumber's assistant and plumber who alleges his former employer failed to properly pay him for overtime in violation of the FLSA. Mr. Wickles alleges he was constructively discharged later for complaining about FLSA violations. Mr. Wickles says he did not receive overtime compensation for the work he performed in excess of 40 hours in a week. Premier Plumbing provides residential and commercial plumbing in Greater Gainesville and Surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's Order conditionally certifying class is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3juDWdN at no extra charge.[CC] PREMIUM CONNECTION: Misclassifies Employees, Bonner Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES B. BONNER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM CONNECTION SERVICES, INC. and DAREL BLOHM, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00271 (S.D. Tex., November 1, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full time thread representatives from approximately January 12 to June 2019. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were improperly misclassified by the Defendants as independent contractors. Instead of paying them overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40, the Defendants paid them on a straight-time-for-overtime plan or the same hourly rate regardless of the numbers of hours they worked per week. Premium Connection Services, Inc. provides oilfield services. Darel Blohm is the President and director. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Burke, Esq. MICHAEL K. BURKE, PLLC 2362-I Bering Dr. Houston, TX 77057 Tel: (713) 553-7930 E-mail: mkbpllc@gmail.com PREMIUM SEATS: Bryant Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Seats USA, LLC. The case is captioned as Amanda Bryant, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Premium Seats USA, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-62187-AHS (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2020). The case is assigned to Judge Raag Singhal. Premium Seats USA, LLC is a privately owned, licensed ticket agency featuring an online ticket exchange for sports, concert and theater tickets across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen Etzel, Esq. Nicholas Anthony Colella, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com ncolella@carlsonlynch.com PRESSED JUICERY: Settlement Classes Sought in Brooks Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC. a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01687-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 11, 2020, for an order: 1. preliminarily approving the proposed Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement; 2. certifying the two settlement classes: Nationwide Class: "all individuals who (a) have a disability as that term is defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the "ADA" 42 U.S.C. section 12102, and similar state and local disability laws, and (b) have accessed the Website and Mobile Applications, and (c) have been denied equal access as a result of their disability"; and California Class: "all individuals in the State of California who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined under the ADA and similar state and local disability laws, and (b) have accessed the Website and Mobile Applications, and (c) have been denied equal access as a result of their disability"; 3. appointing Wilshire Law Firm as class counsel of these classes; 4. appointing herself as class representative, all conditioned on the Court’s final approval of the Settlement Agreement; 5. approving the proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Fairness Hearing and Claim Form; 6. approving the method of notice, among other places, the Settlement Agreement; and 7. establishing a date and time for a hearing on final approval of the Settlement Agreement and its fairness and the preceding submission of any objections or notices of intent to appear at such a hearing. The Amended Settlement provides: -- for a $112,500 settlement fund to be paid by Defendant, which fund will, after deductions for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and a service award for the Class Representative; -- for an enhancement award of $2,500 for the Plaintiff as the Class Representative to be paid from the $112,500 settlement fund; and -- that Class Counsel may seek approval of attorneys' fees and taxable costs in the amount of $35,000, payable to Class Counsel from the $112,500 settlement fund if approved by the Court. This action was filed in this district on August 28, 2019, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Act based on the Defendant's website -- https://www.pressedjuicery.com -- allegedly not being fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff purports to be a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. She alleges she encountered access barriers on the Website, which denied her "full and equal access" and continues to deter her from accessing the Website. The Defendant sells cold-pressed juices and other products, which it advertises via the Website, mobile applications and at its brick and mortar stores located in several states throughout the United States. A copy of the Joint motion for conditional certification of settlement classes is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kBkHAF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Arlene K. Kline, Esq. Zoe J. Bekas, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 601 W. Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: arlene.kline@akerman.com zoe.bekas@akerman.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Stedman Suit Seeks to Certify Insured Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL STEDMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; KAREN JOYCE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO., a foreign automobile insurance company, Case No. 2:18-CV-1254 RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all insured, as defined within Progressive's Automobile Policy, and all third-party beneficiaries of such coverage, under any Progressive insurance policy effective in the state of Washington between July 24, 2012 and the present, for whom Progressive limited or terminated benefits, or denied coverage based, even in part, upon its determination that its insured or beneficiary had reached "maximum medical improvement" or a "fix and stabled" condition." The Plaintiff seeks to certify the Class to correct the class-wide harm that resulted from Progressive's systematic practice of applying the MMI-standard to limit PIP benefits to hundreds of its Washington policyholders and third-party claimants. This action arises from the Defendant Progressive bad faith application of Maximum Medical Improvement ("MMI") to adjust personal injury claims, in violation of the Washington Administrative Code. Progressive and its associated entities insure more than sixteen million drivers across the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35Ehzxs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Duncan C. Turner, Esq. Mark A. Trivett, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com mtrivett@badgleymullins.com - and - Randall C. Johnson Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL JOHNSON, PLLC PO Box 15881 Seattle, WA 98115 Telephone: (206) 890-0616 E-mail: rcjj.law@gmail.com - and - Daniel R. Whitmore, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE, PS 6840 Fort Dent Way, No. 210 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 329-8400 E-mail: dan@whitmorelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Casi D. Collignon, Esq. Justin T. Winquist, Esq. James Raymond Morrison, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (Denver) 1800 California Street, No. 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-861-0600 E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com jwinquist@bakerlaw.com pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com jmorrison@bakerlaw.com PULSE OPINION: Faces Perrong Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. PULSE OPINION RESEARCH, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05284-JP (E.D. Pa., October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's conduct of sending prerecorded message automated calls to phone numbers, including the Plaintiff, which is prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to receive such calls, which were placed to him for polling purposes. Because polling campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of recipients en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal automated calls from or on behalf of Defendant. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC is in the business of conducting polling and proving associated research services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Clinton Kelley, Esq. 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 454-5599 E-mail: gckesq@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com RAM PAYMENT: Germinario Seeks Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE GERMINARIO, on behalf of herself and all other class members similarly situated, v. Ram Payment, L.L.C. t/a Reliant; Account Management; Reliant Account Management, L.L.C. (CA); Reliant Account Management, L.L.C. (IN); Account Management Systems, L.L.C.; Reliant Account Management Systems, L.L.C.; GS Associated Holdings, L.L.C.(CA) a/k/a GS Holdings, L.L.C.; GS Associated Holdings L.L.C. (AZ) a/k/a GS Holdings, L.L.C.; WST Management, L.L.C.; Austin Co. L.L.C.; Reliant Management Services, L.L.C.; Stephen Chaya; Gregory Winters, Scott Austin, Stephen Chaya Trust Agreement; Active Debt Solutions, L.L.C. f/k/a Active Debt Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Guardian Legal Center; Paralegal Support Group, L.L.C. f/k/a Paralegal Staff Support, L.L.C.; John Doe(s) 1-100, said name of John Doe(s) being fictitious, Case No. 1:20-cv-12130-NLH-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rules Civil Practice 23: 1. certifying this matter as a class action and designating a class; 2. appointing himself as representative of the class; and 3. designating his counsel as class counsel and providing for submission and approval of appropriate and timely notice to class members upon receipt of list of the names and addresses of all class members to be provided by the defendants. Reliant Account Management is a neutral third party payment processing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HEKGIs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Pinto, Esq. POLINO and PINTO, P.C. 720 East Main Street, Suite 1C Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 727-1777 E-mail: Jfpolino@prodigy.net The Defendants are represented by: Shaji M. Eapen, Esq. METHFASSAL & WERBEL, P.C. 2025 Lincoln Highway, Suite 200 Edison, NJ 08818 RASTELLI FOODS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Angeles Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RASTELLI FOODS DTC, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08968-MKV (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act due to its 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. According to the complaint, on multiple occasions, the last occurring in October of 2020, Ms. Angeles visited the Defendant's Website, www.rastellis.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. The Plaintiff alleges 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, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Rastelli Foods DTC, LLC is a meat and seafood distribution 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 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bajjuri Sues Over 7% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- Pranay K. Bajjuri, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation F/K/A Raytheon Company; Thomas A. Kennedy; Anthony F. O’Brien; and Michael J. Wood, Case No. 4:20-cv-00468-JAS (D. Ariz., Oct. 30, 2020) seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Raytheon securities between February 10, 2016 and October 27, 2020, inclusive. From February 10, 2016, the start of the Class period, the Company published a series of annual reports on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The latest one was on February 12, 2020, where the Company published its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2019. In a section signed by Individual Defendants, the 2019 annual report stated the Company's internal control over financial reporting: "Based on its assessment, management has concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2019, based on criteria in Internal Control - Integrated Framework, issued by the COSO in 2013." The report further provided information regarding the Company's Integrated Defense Systems and Missile Systems segments. According to the complaint, the statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon misreported its costs regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from the government; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice; and (6) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per share, or 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. The market for Raytheon securities promptly digested current information regarding the Company from all publicly available sources and reflected such information in the prices of the securities, and the Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to a presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market, the suit says. Raytheon Technologies Corporation operates as an aircraft manufacturing company. The Company focuses on technology offerings and engineering teams to deliver innovative solutions such as aerostructures, avionics, interiors, mechanical systems, mission systems, aircraft engines, power and control systems, radars, software, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard G. Himelrick, Esq. TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A. Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II 2525 E. Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 255-6000 E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA HUBBARD, v. RCM TECHNOLOGIES (USA), INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-06363-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. certifying a class consisting of: "all non-exempt hourly employees employed by RCM Technologies (USA), Inc. in California who, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification, worked one or more workweeks in which they were paid overtime and received a weekly per diem or stipend"; 3. appointing the plaintiff Rhonda Hubbard as the representative of the certified class; and 4. appointing Matthew B. Hayes and Kye D. Pawlenko of Hayes Pawlenko LLP as class counsel for the certified class. The Court said, "Given the size and geographic diversity of the proposed class, numerosity is satisfied. The named plaintiff represents that she worked travel nurse assignments for defendant in California, for which she received per diem payments that were conditioned on her working a certain number of hours and that were prorated based on hours worked. She further represents that she worked overtime and had the value of her per diem payments excluded from the regular rate used to calculate her overtime pay. Her claims are typical of the class. The adequacy factor is met. The predominance and superiority requirements are satisfied. Accordingly, the motion for class certification is granted." A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dOlhrT at no extra charge.[CC] REQUIN: Delcid Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS DELCID, DANIELLE HARRIS and MILENA RADULOVIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL ISABELLA, JOHANNES ALLENDER, TAHA ISMAIL, and DHIANDRA OLSON, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-03167-TDC (D. Md., October 30, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act, and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiffs worked as a runner, pastry chef, and bartender at the Defendants' Requin restaurant. According to the complaint, Defendant Isabella filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for its Mike Isabella Concept restaurant in September 2018 amid widespread and well-publicized financial turmoil affecting his restaurant group. At the time of Isabella's Chapter 11 filing, it was publicly reported that some of his restaurant employees' checks had bounced in the weeks leading up to the filing. Although the Defendants gave the Plaintiffs assurances that its Requin restaurant branch remained successful, would remain open for business and their wages would continue to be paid, the Plaintiffs started experiencing interruptions in their regular receipt of wages, tips, and accompanying paystubs through a payroll service on or around November 2018. The Plaintiffs began receiving checks from a debtor in possession BallKap, LLC account that did not reflect employee tax withholding, did not include any detail for hours worked and rate of pay, and did not breakout wages and tips. Moreover, some of the paychecks received by the Plaintiffs and other Requin employees did not fully pay their wages and tips earned, some were returned for insufficient funds, and others were returned marked as unauthorized. Subsequently on or about December 22, 2018, Requin was permanently shut down by the Defendants without prior notice to the Plaintiffs, following its landlord's filing of eviction lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court due to unpaid rent for the May to December 2018 time period. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to pay them and those similarly situated for work performed before the shutdown, thereby failing to pay them their lawfully earned minimum and overtime wages. Michael Isabella is a celebrity chef, who owned and managed Requin, as part of his Mike Isabella Concepts restaurant group. Johannes Allender was the co-owner and Chief Financial Officer of Requin. Taha Ismail was the Beverage Director of Requin, an executive officer and co-owner of certain affiliates of Requin. Dhiandra Olson was the Assistant General Manager of Requin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Katz, Esq. Hannah E.M. Lieberman, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 319-1000 Fax: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: Daniel_Katz@washlaw.org Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org - and – Lindsey Strang Aberg, Esq. Ricardo S. Camposanto, Esq. Michelle E. Divelbiss, Esq. Patrick B. Shaw, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 912-4700 E-mail: lstrang@axinn.com rcamposanto@axinn.com mdivelbiss@axinn.com pshaw@axinn.com RESQ MANUFACTURING: Grebe Files Labor Suit in Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resq Manufacturing. The case is styled as Michael Grebe v. Does 1-100, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; and Resq Manufacturing, a California corporation, Case No. 34-2020-00287116-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. Resq Manufacturing is a custom cable assembly and electro-mechanical manufacturing company based in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Douglas Han, Esq. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Warwick Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF WARWICK MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC., JOSE E. CIL, MATTHEW DUNNIGAN, JACQUELINE FRIESNER, ALEXANDRE BEHRING, DANIEL SCHWARTZ, MARC CAIRA, MARTIN FRANKLIN, PAUL J. FRIBOURG, NEIL GOLDEN, ALI HEDAYAT, GOLNAR KHOSROWSHAHI, CARLOS ALBERTO SICUPIRA, JOAO M. CASTRO-NEVES, ROBERTO THOMPSON MOTTA, ALEXANDRE VAN DAMME, 3G CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD., 3G RESTAURANT BRANDS HOLDINGS LP, and MORGAN STANLEY & CO LLC, Case No. 655686/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., October 26, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose adverse facts resulting to the decline in the market value of the Company's securities -- in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff's claims are solely strict liability and negligence claims for violations of the said law relating to Restaurant Brands' secondary public offering (SPO) commenced on or about August 12, 2019 of 24,000,000 common shares at a price of $73.50 and Restaurant Brands' secondary public offering commenced on or about September 5, 2019 of 16,690,717 common shares at a price of $75.10. The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a Class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands' common shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Shelf Registration Statement issued in connection with the SPOs, and who were damaged thereby. According to the complaint, at the time of the SPOs, Restaurant Brands was engaging in a growth strategy sometimes referred to as the "Winning Together" plan, which encompassed three pillars: (1) restaurant experience; (2) product excellence; and (3) brand communications. The Shelf Registration Statement told investors that "increasing restaurant sales and profitability are critical" to the Company's success. To obtain that success, the Company employed, among other things, new product offerings and a loyalty program called Tims Rewards that sought to increase customer traffic and as a result, increase sales. However, at the time of the offerings, the discounting associated with Tims Rewards was not being offset by customer traffic and purchases, exacerbated by failed product offerings, and was negatively affecting the Company's sales and its ability to compete effectively. The Company would admit after the Offerings, through which the Company's controlling stockholders 3G Capital Partners, Ltd. and 3G Restaurant Brands Holdings LP offloaded almost 10% of its holdings in Restaurant Brands stock, that the discounting through its Tims Rewards program and weak lunch food offerings had a negative impact on sales, the suit says. As a result of these undisclosed adverse facts, Restaurant Brands' stock allegedly plummeted, falling from its offering prices of $73.50 and $75.10 to close at $55.41 per share on October 26, 2020. Restaurant Brands International Inc. is a quick service restaurant company with restaurants located in the United States and more than one hundred other countries and is incorporated and headquartered in Canada. 3G Capital Partners Ltd. is a global investment firm. 3G Restaurant Brands Holdings LP is an affiliate company of 3G Capital Partners. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as an investment management company. The Company offers wealth management, capital markets, investment banking, research, trading, recapitalizations, equities valuations, and financial advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. Lisa Strejlau, Esq. Anna Menkova, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com afatale@labaton.com lstrejlau@labaton.com amenkova@labaton.com - and - Guillaume Buell, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 1 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 531-3933 E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com - and - Joseph Brennan, Esq. SHEKARCHI LAW OFFICE 33 College Hill Road, Suite 15-E Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 827-0100 Facsimile: (401) 823-1400 E-mail: Jbrennan810@gmail.com RMP LLC: Ginsberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Sholom Ginsberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RMP, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-14783-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J., Oct. 21, 2020) seeks damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that some time prior to February 14, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred to two separate non-parties: University of Minnesota Physicians, and M Health Clinic and Surgery. The alleged debts were incurred as financial obligations that were primarily for personal, family or household purposes and are therefore each a "debt" as that term is defined by FDCPA, specifically for personal medical services. According to the letter received by the Plaintiff, U of M Physicians and M Health Clinic and Surgery placed the accounts with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. The letter fails to identify the amount owed to each of the two creditors. The letter further implies that interest is accruing on the debt although no interest is actually being collected or intended to be collected. The Plaintiff is unable to evaluate how much is truly being alleged as the correct balance, is being misled at to the total owed, and cannot properly evaluate the offers of settlement. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, the suit says. RMP, LLC is a debt collection agency located in Sartell, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ, 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 S.A.S SERVICES: Faces Aroche Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR AROCHE, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. S.A.S SERVICES GROUP, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV41986 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 2, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices and policies in violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to (1) pay all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a result of their policy of improperly paying its non-exempt hourly employees; (2) provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) pay wages upon ending employment to terminated or resigned employees; and (6) indemnify for necessary expenditures. The Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2608 et seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 in connection with the Defendants' Labor Code violations. Mr. Aroche was employed by the Defendants from on or about April 2016 through March 16, 2020, in the County of Los Angeles as a baggage handler, wheelchair assistant, security and as a provision assistant. S.A.S Services Group, Inc. is a California-based airline and airport ground services handling company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net SABER HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in Bartels Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. BARTELS, Executor of the ESTATE OF JEANNET. BARTELS, and JOSEPH J. PFOHL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, FRA KLOPERA TIOS LLC d/b/a FRANKLIN MANOR ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GABRIEL MANOR ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, and QUEEN CITY AL HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a THE CROSSINGS AT STEELE CREEKE, Case No. 5:16-CV-283-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W . Boyle entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class: 2. granting the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings; and 3. dismissing the claims against Gabriel Manor and the Crossings; and 4. granting the Defendants' motion to seal and the parties' consent motion to amend the scheduling order. The Court said, "The plaintiffs do not satisfy the [FRCP] Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry, and individualized issues outweigh any common issues that the plaintiff identifies. Specifically, individualized issues regarding injury predominate over any common questions because there is no reliable means of providing class-wide injury. The staffing levels varied significantly across the class period, and state regulators performing inspections found staffing levels to be appropriate except on three occasions. The Plaintiffs will have to determine what the staffing of the facility was during each shift and on each day of each putative class member's residency. Individualized issues will further abound, as the plaintiffs must show what the needs of the residents were at any given time in order to show that those needs were net met. The putative class members were subject to individualized care plans, which changed frequently. The Court will need to individually assess each care place for each resident of the facility to determine what the needs of the residents were at any given time and whether those needs were adequately met. Therefore, plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be denied." In April 2016, the plaintiffs filed this action in Franklin County Superior Court as a putative class action alleging claims arising from the Defendants' failure to comply with their contractual and statutory obligations to provide assisted living services that meet the needs of the residents. The plaintiffs that remain in the case are Joseph Pfohl, executor of the estate of Bernice Pfohl, and Edward Bartels, executor of the estate of Jeanne Bartels. Ms. Pfohl and Ms. Bartels were residents of Franklin Manor. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37EFjUW at no extra charge.[CC] SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Austin Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIE AUSTIN, JR., an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-587314 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices and policies in violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse for required expenses and unfair competition in violation of California labor laws. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since April of 2016 as a non-exempt employee. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. is an American provider of vehicle glass repair, replacement, and calibration services and insurance claims management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 SENTINEL INSURANCE: Blushark Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- BLUSHARK DIGITAL, LLC v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-01593-KAD (D. Conn., October 22, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising from the Defendant's denial of coverage for business losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff is a small business that purchased the Defendant's insurance policy and made premium payments for a policy that, in the event of a catastrophe requiring a shutdown of business operations, would require the Defendant to honor its contractual obligation to provide coverage. In March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to close its digital marketing business pursuant to the closure orders of the state due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, in response to the business interruption claims filed by the Plaintiff and thousands of other class members resulting from the pandemic, the Defendant has systematically denied and continues to deny and refuse to provide payment for insurance claims for coverage for similar losses and expenses by insureds holding policies that are, in all material respects, identical. The Defendant's decision to not provide coverage and/or its decision to refuse to pay claims under the common policy forms issued to the Plaintiff and the putative class members constitutes a breach of contract and provides it with the right to seek a declaratory judgment on behalf of itself and the class members establishing that it is entitled to receive the benefit of the insurance coverage it purchased and for indemnification of the business losses it has sustained. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. operates as an insurance company. The Company provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Rosenthal, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH ROSENTHAL One Audubon Street, 3d Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 915-4235 Facsimile: (203) 306-3286 E-mail: krosenthal@gs-lawfirm.com - and - Dominic J. Aprile, Esq. BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C. One Airport Road, P.O. Box 2043 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Telephone: (732) 363-0666 Facsimile: (732) 363 9864 E-mail: daprile@bathweg.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com adams@moskowitz-law.com - and - William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr. MERLIN LAW GROUP 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-1000 Facsimile: (813) 229-3692 E-mail: cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com SKANSKA KOCH: Court Okays Filing of Third Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC. and KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE, CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: 1. granting the motion to file Third Amended Complaint; and 2. dismissing without prejudice the currently pending motions to dismiss and motion for conditional collective action certification. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs shall file the Third Amended Complaint no later than October 23, 2020. The Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of the entry of this Order to file their answers, motions to dismiss, and/or motion for conditional collective action certification. The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks to add five named Plaintiffs, James Kearney, Daniel Julio, John Siciliano, Jeffrey Brooks, and Mark Leyble. The Proposed Plaintiffs were all iron workers who were members of a different union than Cortese, the Iron Workers Local Union No. 11, based out of Bloomfield, New Jersey. The Plaintiff Cortese is a union crane operator who was employed in 2015 to work on the Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway Plan" construction project ("Bayonne Bridge Project") by the Skanska Koch-Kiewit JV ("SKKJV"). Cortese is also a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825, based out of Springfield, New Jersey. He worked on the Bayonne Bridge Project for five months, including on the New York City side of that project. SKKJV was the general contractor on the Bayonne Bridge Project pursuant to a joint venture with the Port Authority of New York ("PANY"). A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mnIrZq at no extra charge.[CC] SOC LLC: Darrough Employment Suit Removed to District of Nevada --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GENE DARROUGH, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SOC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SOC-SMG, INC., a Nevada corporation; DAY & ZIMMERMANN, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. A-20-822215-C, was removed from the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on October 21, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01951-APG-BNW to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages relating to his employment by SOC for security services provided in Iraq. SOC LLC offers security management services to its clients. The Company staffs and trains military, police, and corporate personnel. SOC LLC also provides services including base operation, camp engineering and construction, vehicle and aircraft maintenance, supply management, facility repair, port and airfield operations, and communication support.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer K. Hostetler, Esq. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 949-8200 Facsimile: (702) 949-8378 E-mail: jhosteteler@lrrlaw.com - and - Tara M. Lee, Esq. Scott Lerner, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 Telephone: (202) 626-3600 Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 E-mail: tara.lee@whitecase.com scott.lerner@whitecase.com SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Schion Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Virgil Schion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Southern Connections & Services, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03266-S (N.D. Tex., Oct. 27, 2020), is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act, seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek while working for the Defendant paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant while paid on an hourly basis who, like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in 2018. He was employed as a caser in connection with its provision of oil and gas related casing services. He earned an hourly rate of approximately $23.00 per hour. He alleges that when he worked more than 40 hours per week, which happened frequently, the Defendant compensated him at his hourly-rate only (straight time) and never compensated him at time and one-half his regular rate of pay in violation of the FLSA. Southern Connections offers drilling and completions rigs services all across the state of Texas and surrounding states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Huntsman Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYSON HUNTSMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 4:19-cv-00083-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 27, 2021, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "current or former employees of Southwest Airlines Co. who, during their employment with Southwest at any time from October 10, 2004 through the date of judgment in this action, have taken short-term military leave from their employment with Southwest (i.e., military leave that lasted 14 days or fewer) and were subject to a collective bargaining agreement, except for employees subject to the agreement between Southwest and Transport Workers Union Local 550 covering meteorologists"; 2. appointing himself as Representative of the Class; and 3. appointing his counsel Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden LLP and R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Plaintiff's other counsel as additional Class Counsel. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and similarly-situated Southwest employees, alleging that Southwest's policy of refusing to provide paid leave for periods of short-term military service violates USERRA because Southwest provides paid leave for other comparable short-term absences from work. The Plaintiff Jayson Huntsman is a pilot for Southwest Airlines Co. who served in the Air Force Reserves from 2012 to 2020. Southwest is a major American airline headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost carrier. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37zrDuf at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Michael Scimone, Esq. Michael Christopher Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. Vincent Cheng, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com vincent@blockesq.com - and - Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC 905 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 409 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 850-7011 E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com - and - Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER 1900 L Street NW, Ste 312 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 E-mail: peter@guptawessler.com - and - Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD PLLC 1020 N. Washington Dr. Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (425) 239-7290 ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Louviere et al Seek to Certify Detainees Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LOUVIERE, TERRY MATTHEW HALL, JR., and FLOYD WILLIAMS, v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, a/k/a/ ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL; RANDY SMITH, in his official and individual capacity; RODNEY J. STRAIN, in his official and individual capacity; GREG LONGINO, in his official and individual capacity; and LACEY KELLY, in her official and individual capacity, Case No. 2:20-cv-01840-WBV-DPC (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all detainees who have been or will be placed into the custody of the St. Tammany Parish Jail and were detained for at least two consecutive days in holding cells." The class period commences when this practice began, including but not limited to the time period commencing on March 22, 2019, and extends to the date on which St. Tammany Parish is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice and custom of refusing to abide by appropriate detention and housing standards to all pre-trial detainees admitted to the St. Tammany Parish Jail and held in the intake and/or holding cell area. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. The Plaintiffs also seek an order: 1. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and 2. appointing Jacob Litigation, the Glorioso Law Firm, and Romanucci & Blandin, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs represent a class of more than 5,000 men who were detainees held in the holding cells at St. Tammany Jail from March 22, 2019 until the present. As detainees, in the holding cells at St. Tammany Jail, detainees were held in deplorable conditions and experienced egregious, severe and demeaning violations of their constitutional rights, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs filed claims alleging violations of their 14th Amendment Rights under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jJSaHA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maria B. Glorioso, Esq. Vincent J. Glorioso, Jr., Esq. THE GLORIOSO LAW FIRM 2716 Athania Parkway Metairi, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 569-9999 Facsimile: (504) 569-9022 E-mail: maria@gtorts.com - and - Devon M. Jacob, Esq. JACOB LITIGATION, INC. P.O. Box 837 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0837 Telephone: (717) 796-7733 E-mail: djacob@jacoblitigation.com - and - Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq. Bhavani K. Raveendran, Esq. Nicolette A. Ward, Esq. Ian P. Fallon, Esq. ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 458-1000 Facsimile: (312) 458-1004 E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net b.raveendran@rblaw.net nward@rblaw.net ifallon@rblaw.net STAR NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Nail Workers, Tian Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BAOQUAN TIAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAR NAIL SALON, INC., YOUNG HEE KANG a/k/a Younghee Kang a/k/a Young H. Kang, and SUNG KOOK KANG a/k/a Sung K. Kang a/k/a Seungkook Kang a/k/a Sam Kang, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05263 (E.D.N.Y., November 1, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a nail worker from on or about June 24, 2020 to July 16, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to: -- pay him at least the New York minimum wage for each hour worked as well as "spread of hours" premium for everyday in which he worked over 10 hours; -- pay him his lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek; -- keep full and accurate records of his hours and wages in order to mitigate liability for their wage violations; -- furnish any notice of their use of tip credit; and -- provide him and other similarly situated employees with time of hire notice reflecting true rates of pay and payday. Star Nail Salon, Inc. provides nail services. The individual Defendants are officers, directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of the corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 STATE FARM: Alissa's Flowers Appeals Order in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Alissa's Flowers, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Order and final Judgment dated October 22, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled ALISSA'S FLOWERS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-4093-CV-C-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 18, 2020, the lawsuit seeks to remedy disparity, and seeks damages and other relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated entities, who were overcharged premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, while insurers offer billions of dollars in insurance premium relief to automotive policyholders, they are offering no premium relief to businesses that are experiencing a similar reduction in exposure. The Plaintiff contends that despite a comparable drop in insurable conduct, insurers have not offered any sort of premium relief to businesses, even though they also have experienced a substantial reduction in business and exposure due to COVID-19. Like thousands of other businesses across the United States, the Plaintiff's operations have been and continue to be disrupted by government restrictions related to the novel coronavirus, SARS CoV-2, which causes the infectious disease COVID-19, according to the complaint. On October 22, 2020, the District Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). State Farm argues the court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims because it failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing its complaint. State Farm also argues that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted because the Plaintiff does not articulate a cognizable theory for an excessive rate that violates Missouri law. The appellate case is captioned as Alissa's Flowers, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Case No. 20-3340, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before December 16, 2020; -- Appendix is due on December 28, 2020; -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Alissa's Flowers, Inc. is due on December 28, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Alissa's Flowers, Inc. is represented by: Matthew V. Bartle, Esq. David Louis Marcus, Esq. BARTLE & MARCUS 116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 256-4614 Facsimile: (816) 222-0534 E-mail: mbartle@bmlawkc.com dmarcus@bmlawkc.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Courtney Marie Stout, Esq. WILLIAMS & DIRKS 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7135 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com dirks@williamsdirks.com cstout@williamsdirks.com Defendant-Appellee State Farm Fire & Casualty Company is represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. Robert F. Epperson, Jr., Esq. Michael J. Kuhn, Esq. James G. Martin, Esq. DOWD & BENNETT 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com repperson@dowdbennett.com mkuhn@dowdbennett.com jmartin@dowdbennett.com STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Sanitation Workers Class Sought --------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID CHAVEZ and VINCENT SLAUGHTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STELLAR MANAGEMENT GROUP VII, LLC; STELLAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. d/b/a QSI QUALITY SERVICE INTEGRITY; THE VINCIT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a THE VINCIT GROUP and VINCIT ENTERPRISES, Case No. 3:19-cv-01353-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 4, 2020, for an order, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for conditional certification to proceed as a collective action and facilitate notice to the following proposed collectives: "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Stellar Management Group VII, LLC; Stellar Management Group, Inc. d/b/a QSI Quality Service Integrity; The Vincit Company, LLC d/b/a The Vincit Group and Vincit Enterprises in the United States during the time period three years prior to March 13, 2019, until the resolution of this action ("Sanitation Workers")"; The Plaintiff seeks to redress the Defendants' failure to satisfy its obligations under the FLSA, by denying them and other "similarly situated" Sanitation Workers their non-waivable rights to overtime and minimum wage. Stellar was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of electrical appliances, television and radio sets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dUeMEf at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, and the Putative Class and Collective, are: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Michelle S. Lim, 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 mlim@schneiderwallace.com SUNWORKS INC: Bruckner Balks at Merger Deal with Peck Company ------------------------------------------------------------- GARY BRUCKNER, v. SUNWORKS, INC., CHARLES CARGILE, DANIEL GROSS, RHONE RESCH, JUDITH HALL, and STANLEY SPEER, Case No. 5:20-cv-07458 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Sunworks and the members of Sunworks' Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit seeks to enjoin a vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Sunworks will be acquired by The Peck Company Holdings, Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary Peck Mercury, Inc. (Merger Sub). On August 10, 2020, Sunworks and Peck issued a joint press release announcing that had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 10, 2020, to sell Sunworks to Peck. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Sunworks common stock will receive 0.185171 shares of Peck common stock for each share of Sunworks common stock that they own. Upon closing of the Proposed Transaction, Sunworks stockholders will own approximately 36.54%, and Peck stockholders will own approximately 63.46%, of the combined company. On October 15, 2020, Sunworks filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A 19 ("Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Sunworks stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's and Peck's financial projections, which are wholly omitted from the Proxy Statement; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP; and (iii) HCVT's and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff alleges that unless remedied, Sunworks' public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured. The Plaintiff is, and has been a continuous stockholder of Sunworks. The Defendant Sunworks is a premier provider of high-performance solar power systems. Sunworks' common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker symbol "SUNW." The Individual Defendants are directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: 310 208 2800 Facsimile: 310 209 2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carole Ann Sawyer, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Tidelands Health ASC, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01612-SAL-MHC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of the following individuals pursuant Federal Rule 23 (b)(3) of Civil Procedure: "all former employees who during the period of June 4, 2016 and continuing through the entry of judgment in this case, had their wages reduced due to financial obligations owed to Tidelands Health ASC, LLC for medical services for themselves or other family members for whom the employee was the guarantor"; 2. appointing herself as class representative; and 3. appointing her counsel, Marybeth Mullaney, as class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TfDYvd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW, LLC 652 Rutledge Ave Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 588-5587 Facsimile: (843) 593-9334 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Daniels Balks at Race, Gender Bias --------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DANIELS, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated v. TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS AND CARTAGE, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company; RCS TRANSPORTATION, LLC, d/b/a RCS TRANSPORTATION OF KENTUCKY, LLC, a Kentucky Limited Liability Company; and VALIANT MANAGEMENT AND HOLDINGS, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00869-RK (W.D. Mo., Oct. 28, 2020) is an employment action based upon and arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendants in approximately early 2018 as a casual driver. All class members are similarly situated to the Plaintiff in that they are Black employees of the Defendants who were passed over for the opportunity to transition into working as full-time employees in favor of other non-Black employees. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against Black casual drivers; failed to make good faith efforts to establish and enforce policies to prevent illegal discrimination against casual drivers, including race and/or sex discrimination under Title VII; and failed to properly train or otherwise inform their supervisors and employees concerning their duties and obligations under the civil rights laws, including Title VII. Traditional Logistics and Cartage, LLC; RCS Transportation, LLC; and Valiant Management and Holdings, LLC provide management, IT system support, loss prevention services which includes but not limited to safety training, quality training, as well as auditing and claims investigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Katherine Paulus, Esq. Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 5821 NW 72nd Street Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 E-mail: m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Goble Files Insurance Suit in S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Trumbull Insurance Company. The case is captioned as John Goble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trumbull Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, October 26, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues pursuant to Diversity-Insurance Contract. The case is assigned to Judge Sarah D. Morrison. Trumbull Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company provides fire and casualty insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq. WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC P.O. Box 6 2 N. Main Street, Unit 2 Thornville, OH 43076 Telephone: (740) 785-7730 Facsimile: (740) 205-8898 E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Bruckno Seeks Tuition Refund Over COVID Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN BRUCKNO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TUFTS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11940-RWZ (D. Mass., Oct. 28, 2020) seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for academic semesters at the University, which moved to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 10, 2020, Tufts announced that it was canceling in-person classes due to the pandemic. After its March 2020 announcement, Tufts canceled three days of classes, and moved substantially all of the remaining classes online. Many classes were canceled for the rest of the semester, and not taught even online. In either case, students like Plaintiff were forced to forego the remaining semester of promised in-class instruction. According to the complaint, Tufts has failed to apportion the burden in an equitable manner or consistent with its obligations as an educational institution while the effects of the COVID-19 crisis are shared by all individuals and institutions across the U.S. The Plaintiff and the putative Class contracted and paid for a robust education and full experience of academic life on Tufts's campus; remote online learning cannot provide the same value as in-person education. As a result, Tufts has financially damaged the Plaintiff and the putative Class members. The Plaintiff brings this suit because she and the Class members did not receive the full value of the services for which they paid. They lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss. They are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorneys' fees and costs, the suit says. The Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Defendant Tufts University. Tufts University is one of the private universities in the U.S., providing higher education in the arts, sciences, medicine, engineering, law and diplomacy, and management, among other disciplines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. Consumer & Family Law Center of Claude F. Lefebvre | Christopher M. Lefebvre, PC PO Box 479 Pawtucket, RI 02862 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 Facsimile: (401) 728-6534 E-mail: chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Yvette Golan, Esq. THE GOLAN FIRM 2000 M Street, NW, Suite #750-A Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (866) 298-4150 Facsimile: (928) 441-8250 E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com UNIFIN INC: Faces Armstrong Suit in Indiana Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin Inc. The case is captioned as Dana Armstrong, also known as: Dana Below, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin Inc., Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-00379-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind., Oct. 21, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Philip P. Simon. Unifin Inc. is an Illinois-based debt collector. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides financial services. The Company offers payment rewards, bankruptcy claims, and debt collection services. Jefferson Capital Systems serves clients in the States of Minnesota and Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic St Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 x101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: Judgment in Prisoner Rights Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Movant Andrew S. Mackey filed an appeal from the District Court's Text Order dated September 30, 2020, and Judgment dated October 20, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled DIANTHE MARTINEZ-BROOKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. D. EASTER & MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-569, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 21, 2020, Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (i) denied the Respondents' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the motion for temporary restraining order. On March 27, 2020, Congress gave federal prison officials an extraordinary tool to confront the extraordinary threat posed by the novel coronavirus within prison walls: the authority to transfer any federal inmate from prison to confinement in his or her home. A week later, the Attorney General of the United States urged the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to "maximize" the use of that tool as soon as possible, stating in an April 3 memorandum that given the speed with which the disease has spread through the general public, and the Bureau's profound obligation to protect the health and safety of all inmates, it is clear that time is of the essence. The Attorney General's memo was triggered by an outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, at the Danbury Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury"), a low security prison in Danbury, Connecticut, and two other federal prisons; the memo directed the BOP to immediately review all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors for potential placement in home confinement, "starting with inmates incarcerated at FCI Danbury and the other two facilities. On April 27, the inmates ("Petitioners") filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 against the Warden of FCI Danbury and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("Respondents"). They sought to represent a class consisting of all inmates in the men's prison and the two women's prisons making up FCI Danbury, as well as a "medically vulnerable" subclass consisting of those inmates with COVID-19 risk factors. They alleged that the only effective way to minimize the potential devastation from COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and FCI Danbury in particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated population and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to undertake aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment measures that public health and medical experts have recommended, including effective social distancing. They further alleged that the Respondents were violating the Eighth Amendment by failing to use the BOP's available statutory authority to reduce the population of FCI Danbury to mitigate the severe risk posed by COVID-19, and by failing to take adequate safety measures to protect inmates during the outbreak. The appellate case is captioned as Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, Case No. 20-3733, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Respondent-Appellee D. Easter, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, in their individual capacities, is represented by: Sandra Slack Glover, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Connecticut Financial Center 157 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Movant-Appellant Andrew S. Mackey of Danbury, CT, appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Milton Appeals Fed. Claims Judgment to Fed. Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Virginia and Arnold Milton filed an appeal from a Court Judgment dated September 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled VIRGINIA AND ARNOLD MILTON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendants, Case Nos. 1:17-cv-01235-LAS, 1:17-cv-09002-LAS, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The action arises under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class members, seek, inter alia, just compensation well in excess of $10,000. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns and operates the Addicks and Barker reservoirs, which were built in the 1940s to protect against flooding in downtown Houston, Texas and the Houston Ship Channel. The taking commenced on or about August 28, 2017, when the government intentionally opened the Addicks and Barker reservoirs to release Hurricane Harvey rain water thereby flooding Buffalo Bayou out of its banks, which inundated, destroyed, damaged and/or devalued the Plaintiffs' and Class members' homes, businesses, buildings, structures, equipment, real, and personal property located downstream from the reservoirs along Buffalo Bayou. The inundation of, destruction of, substantial damage to and/or devaluation of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' homes, businesses, buildings, structures, equipment, and other real and personal property was the natural, direct and probable consequence of the Government releasing flood water from the reservoirs into Buffalo Bayou on or about August–September 2017, the suit alleges. The appellate case is captioned as VIRGINIA MILTON, and, ARNOLD MILTON, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rand P. Nolen, Esq. FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 621-7944 Facsimile: (713) 621-9638 E-mail: rand_nolen@fleming-law.com UNITED STATES: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Onosamba-Ohindo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Jeffrey Searls, in his official capacity as the Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 2, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, Case No. 20-cv-290, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Respondents' motion to dismiss: the claims of the Subclass Petitioner and the claims of the putative class and subclass members detained at the RCC are dismissed without prejudice, all Respondents aside from Jeffrey Searls are dismissed without prejudice, and Respondents' motion is denied as to Class Petitioner's due process claims and INA claim; 2. granting in part and denying in part the Petitioners' motion for class certification, and the Court otherwise reserves decision: Specifically, the Court certifies the Pre-Hearing Class, which is defined as follows: "all individuals currently detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility under section 1226(a) who will have a custody hearing before the Batavia or Buffalo Immigration Courts."; The motion is denied without prejudice as moot to the extent it seeks class certification regarding any putative class member detained at the RCC, including the claims of Subclass Petitioner. The Court reserves decision on whether it will certify the Putative Post- Hearing Class, and a separate Text Order shall be issued setting forth a briefing schedule on that aspect of the class certification motion; further 3. granting in part and denying in part the Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction: Specifically, the Court grants a preliminary injunction as to the constitutional claims of the Pre-Hearing Class and orders that all members of the Pre-Hearing Class must receive a bond hearing wherein the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a danger to the community or flight risk, and where the IJ must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, ability to pay. The Court otherwise denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, including to the extent relief is sought by the Putative Post-Hearing Class and the Subclass Petitioner; 4. directing the parties to confer within seven days of the date of this Decision and Order to develop a plan for the following: a. developing instructions to all IJs in Batavia and Buffalo Immigration Courts who conduct section 1226(a) bond hearings to inform them of the requirements of this Decision and Order; and b. developing a notice, in English, Spanish, and any other language deemed appropriate by the parties, summarizing the requirements of this Decision and Order for distribution to the Pre-Hearing Class members; and 5. directing the parties within ten days to provide a status report to the Court detailing the agreed-upon plan for the matters discussed above, after which the Court will, if necessary, issue an updated order. The Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. At the time the Petition was filed, the Petitioners were both civil immigration detainees held under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) pending their removal proceedings. The Petitioners sought class certification; a declaratory judgment that the "actions, practices, policies, and/or omissions" of defendants/respondents William Barr, the United States Department of Justice, James McHenry, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Matthew Albence, Chad F. Wolf, and Jeffrey Searls violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; a declaratory judgment that each class member is entitled to a custody hearing at which the government bears the burden to justify continued detention by proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detained individual is a danger to others or a flight risk; and an order stating that each class member must be released unless provided with such a custody hearing. The appellate case is captioned as Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, Case No. 20-3712, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Junior Onosamba-Ohindo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and Antonio Lopez Agustin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Megan Sallomi, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3399 Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey Searls, in his official capacity as the Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, is represented by: Tiffany H. Lee, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 138 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 843-5731 UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Graham Suit Over Ransomware Attack ---------------------------------------------------------- Barry K. Graham and Angela Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05375 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 28, 2020), is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other personally identifiable information (collectively, "PHI"), for failing to comply with industry standards for the protection of that PHI, as well as failing to provide accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their PHI had been compromised and precisely what types of information was compromised. On September 28, 2020, the Defendant announced that its "IT Network across Universal Health Services (UHS) facilities is currently offline, due to an IT security issue." However, an individual familiar with the company's response efforts said the attack (not issue) "looks and smells like ransomware." As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow appropriate security procedures, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PHI has been compromised. The Plaintiffs and Class Members now face a substantial increased risk of identity theft. Consequently, the Defendant's current and former customers have had to spend, and will continue to spend, significant time and money in the future to protect themselves due to the Defendant's failures, the complaint says. The Defendant has more than 400 locations, primarily in the United States, and in 2019 generated net revenues of $11.4 billion -- an increase of 5.6% over the prior fiscal year. In 2019, the Defendant expended $634 million investing in equipment, facility expansions and renovations. The Plaintiffs seek orders requiring the Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future. The Plaintiffs also claim for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. Mcgee, Esq. Francesca Kester, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: kboylan@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com fkester@ForThePeople.com - and - William 'Billy' Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com UPS STORE: Schmoll Seeks Shipping Fee Refund for Unsent Packages ---------------------------------------------------------------- HARRY SCHMOLL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE UPS STORE, INC. and MSM PSM LLC d/b/a The UPS Store #5445, Case No. CAM-L-003476-20 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty., October 21, 2020) arises from the Defendants' uniform, company-wide policy of categorically and groundlessly refusing to refund the shipping fees paid by the Plaintiff and the class of packages that never arrive at the intended location. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendants' no-refund policy violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, an injunction enjoining the Defendants from continuing their no-refund policy, and a full refund of all shipping fees paid to the Defendants to ship packages that were never delivered. The UPS Store, Inc. operates as a franchisor of centers specializing in postal and communication services. The Company offers mailbox rentals, parcel shipping and receiving, cable grams, stamps, and packaging. The UPS Store serves customers in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com josefchen@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com USAA GENERAL: Fails to Pay Full Car Insurance, Fuller Says ---------------------------------------------------------- KEDEN FULLER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-62237 (S.D. Fla., November 3, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of USAA first party total loss insureds for USAA's failure to pay amounts due under the Car Replacement Assistance (CRA) endorsement of the Defendant's policy of insurance. Mr. Fuller entered into a private passenger auto physical damage policy agreement to be insured by the Defendant under policy form 5100FL(02) which was in full force and effect on July 22, 2019. The policy provided physical damage coverage for Mr. Fuller's 2011 BMW 5 Series, VIN WBAFR7C5XBC805275. He also purchased from USAA a "Car Replacement Assistance Endorsement" on form A402FL(01). According to the complaint, on or about July 22, 2019, the Plaintiff's insured vehicle was involved in a collision that rendered the vehicle a total loss. The Plaintiff was entitled to recover the actual cash value (ACV) for his total loss under the policy with USAA, as well as a "separate" and "additional" CRA payment in the amount of 20% of ACV to assist with replacing the vehicle. Instead of issuing the CRA payment to the Plaintiff as required by the policy, USAA issued two payments to the company servicing the retail installment contract for Carvana LLC. The complaint says the Defendant improperly withholds payments to the Plaintiff and Class members on the grounds that such payments are collateral proceeds under the Uniform Commercial Code of Florida and all 50 states. The Defendant profits and benefits from its practice of paying the CRA to lienholders because the lienholders are willing to accept less for the actual cash value of the vehicle if the lienholders get the CRA, which is 20% over and above the actual cash value, the suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff was damaged by the breach of the policy by USAA's failure to pay him full CRA of $2,948.74. USAA General Indemnity Company is a Texas-based insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracy L. Markham, Esq. SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC 2800 N 5th Street, Suite 302 St. Augustine, FL 32084 Telephone: (904) 794-7005 Facsimile: (904) 794-7007 E-mail: tlm@southernatlanticlaw.com - and - Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com USAA LIFE: Appeals Spegele Insurance Case Ruling to Fifth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant USAA Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from a Court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROY C. SPEGELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-CV-967, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 7, 2020, the Plaintiff moved the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and/or 23(c)(4): "all persons who own or owned a Universal Life 3 and/or a Universal Life 4 life insurance policy issued or administered by USAA Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors in interest, that was active as of March 1999. Alternatively, the Plaintiff sought certification of a class of: "all persons who own or owned a New York-issued Universal Life 3 and/or a Universal Life 4 life insurance policy issued or administered by USAA Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors in interest, that was active as of March 1999." Excluded from the alternative class are: USAA; any entity in which USAA has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors, or employees of USAA; the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of USAA; anyone employed with Plaintiff's counsel's firms; and any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family. Also excluded from the Class are policies issued by USAA Life Insurance Company of New York. The appellate case is captioned as Roy Spegele v. USAA Life Insurance Company, Case No. 20-50909, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent Roy C. Spegele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David A. Hickey, Esq. STUEVE, SIEGEL & HANSON, L.L.P. 460 Nichols Road Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: hickey@stuevesiegel.com - and - Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. GIRARD, GIBBS & DEBARTOLOMEO 601 California Street San Francisco, CA 94108-0000 Telephone: (451) 981-4800 E-mail: amo@girardgibbs.com - and - John Joseph Schirger, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, L.L.C. 4520 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 E-mail: JSCHIRGER@MILLERSCHIRGER.COM - and - Larry R. Veselka, Esq. SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P. 717 Texas Avenue Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2325 Defendant-Appellant USAA Life Insurance Company is represented by: Robert Nathan Hochman, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, L.L.P. 1 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com USAA: Allen et al. File Appeal in Texas Appeals Court ----------------------------------------------------- An appellate case has been filed by Stephanie Allen, et al. against United Services Automobile Association, et. al., in the Texas Court of Appeals. The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Allen, Mark Allen, as Individuals, and Absolute Life Wellness Center, Inc as Texas Professional Services Corporation, on behalf of themselves and for all other similarly situated, the Appellants vs. United Services Automobile Association; USAA Casualty Insurance Company; USAA General Indemnity Company; Garrison Property And Casualty Insurance Company; and USAA County Mutual Insurance, the Appellees, Case No. 03-20-00204-CV (Texas Court of Appeals). The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal inter-insurance.[BN] The Appellants are represented by: Jarrett Stone, Esq Paul Colley Jr., Esq STONE LAW FIRM The Appellees are represented by: Patrick Kemp, Esq. SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY E-mail: pkemp@smsm.com Austin, TX Telephone: 512 370 1235 Facsimile: 512 476 7832 VAIL CORP: Kutz Seeks to Certify 401(k) Plan Beneficiaries Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA KURTZ, individually, and as representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on Behalf of the Vail Resorts 401(k) Retirement Plan, v. THE VAIL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-RBJ (D. Colo), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Vail Resorts 401(k) Retirement Plan from beginning six years before the commencement of this action through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendant or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan." The Plaintiff Debra Kurtz was employed by Vail Corporation and was a participant in the Plan. Vail sponsors the Plan and is a Plan fiduciary. As of December 31, 2018, the Plan had 8,276 participants and assets of over $300 million. The case focuses on Vail's mismanagement of the 401(k) Plan. Both liability and damages can be proven by common evidence. The legal standard is also common. The duty of prudence embedded in ERISA requires plan fiduciaries act "for the exclusive purpose" of providing benefits to participants and diligently monitoring, managing, and defraying plan expenses -- a crucial duty, as costs directly reduce investment returns in the plan participants' accounts, says the complaint. Vail is an American mountain resort company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3krbKtp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. Edward A. Wallace, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com mjt@wexlerwallace.com - and - J. Mark Baird, Esq. Beth Doherty Quinn, Esq. BAIRD QUINN LLC 2036 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 813-4500 Facsimile: (303) 813-4501 E-mail: jmb@bairdquinn.com bdq@bairdquinn.com - and - Greg F. Coleman, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1190 Knoxville, TX 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com ryan@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Charles Crueger, Esq. Benjamin Kaplan, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3868 Facsimile: (414) 433-4544 E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com bak@cruegerdickinson.com - and - Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile: (954) 206-0374 E-mail: jml@jml-lawfirm.com WALGREEN CO: Mejia Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS MEJIA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00218-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on November 30, 2020, for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, including the amount of the settlement; the amount and methodology pertaining to distributions to the class; the procedure for giving notice to class members; the procedure for allowing class members to opt out of the settlement; the procedure for submitting claims; and the amounts allocated to incentive payments, attorney fees and costs, and administrative costs; 2. provisionally certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes only: "any current or former hourly non-exempt employees who worked at any of Defendants' California distribution centers at any time from November 6, 2014 to June 2, 2020"; 3. approving the form and content of the class notice and directing the distribution of the class notice; 4. appointing Joseph Lavi and Jordan D. Bello of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP and Sahag Majarian II of the Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II as Class Counsel; 5. appointing himself as Class Representative; 6. appointing CPT Group, Inc. as claims administrator; and 7. setting a Final Approval Hearing and hearing on Class Counsel's Attorney Fees and Cost award and Class Representative Services Award for a date on or after April 19, 2021 or as soon thereafter as is acceptable and convenient to the Court. Settlement Summary: a. Maximum Settlement Fund: The maximum settlement payment by the Defendants is $4,500,000. This is a non-claims made and non- reversionary settlement which shall include: payment to Class Members, court approved Class Counsel Fees and Costs, an approved Class Representative Enhancement for his service as class representative, approved Settlement Administration Costs, and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Payment. b. Class Counsel's Fees and Costs: Pursuant to the settlement, Class Counsel can request a payment of up to $1,500,000, one-third of the settlement, for fees and up to $15,000 in costs. c. Class Representative Enhancement: The Plaintiff and Class Counsel will request a service award in the amount of $7,500 for Plaintiff as payment for his time, effort, and assumption of risk in pursuing the litigation. d. Settlement Administration Costs: The parties have agreed to retain CPT Group, Inc. as the "Settlement Administrator" and Plaintiff will request Settlement Administration Costs not to exceed the amount of $35,000. e. PAGA Payment: The Parties have agreed to allocate $150,000 to PAGA penalties with $112,500 be paid to the LWDA as 75% of the PAGA allocation and $37,500 to be distributed to the Class. f. Net Settlement Amount: After deducting approved attorneys' fees and costs, an approved Class Representative Enhancement, approved Settlement Administration Costs, PAGA Payment from the Maximum Settlement Fund; the remaining funds or "Net Settlement Amount" is to be distributed to all Class Members who do not opt out. g. Calculation of Individual Settlement Payment: The Net Settlement Amount will be paid to all Class Members who do not exclude themselves pro rata based on the number of workweeks each Class Member worked for Defendants during the Class Period (i.e., "Compensable Workweeks") compared to the total Compensable Workweeks worked by all Class Members based on Defendants' records. h. No-Reversion Of Uncashed Funds: All settlement payment checks to Class Members shall be valid for 180 days. i. Release Based on the Claims Alleged in the Operative Complaint: The class release provides that upon disbursement of the settlement, Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement release all "Released Claims" from November 6, 2014 to June 2, 2020. On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed this class action in the Superior Court for the County of Yolo alleging that the Defendants failed to pay wages to employees at the applicable minimum wage or overtime rate for all hours worked, failed to provide legally compliant meal periods to employees, failed to provide rest periods, failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code, and failed to timely pay final wages to employees after separation of employment. The Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on January 18, 2019 adding a cause of action for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) based on the foregoing alleged misconduct. On February 4, 2019, the Defendants removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Defendants deny the allegations and contend that they properly and timely compensated employees with all legally required wages, provided employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods, and provided employees with legally compliant wage statements. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TLImm9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.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 WARNER MUSIC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that credit card numbers, shipping addresses, and unencrypted names are among the personal identifiable information allegedly stolen from Warner Music Group Corp. customers when the entertainment and record label conglomerate suffered a data breach over the spring and summer, according to a class action lawsuit filed against the company. Plaintiffs Levi Combs and Esteban Trujillo, both of whom purchased goods from Warner Music Group's websites earlier this year, allege the company acted negligently and invaded customers' privacy when third parties gained unauthorized access to purchasers' information, according to their complaint filed Sept. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Properly Secure Customer Data, Watt Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH WATTS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-08644-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information (PII) of customers, including the Plaintiff and class members, who purchased merchandise through the Defendant's operated Websites. On or about September 2, 2020, the Defendant began notifying various state Attorneys General about a data breach that occurred on many of its Websites between April 25, 2020 and August 5, 2020. The notice stated that "an unauthorized third party had compromised a number of US-based e-commerce Websites Warner Music operates," and that the data breach allowed the "unauthorized third party" to acquire PII that Warner Music customers entered into one or more of the affected Websites' e-commerce platforms. According to the complaint, the PII was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect customers' data. In addition to the Defendant's failure to prevent the data breach, the Defendant failed to detect the breach for almost four months, and when it did discover, it took at least a month to report it to the affected consumers and the states' Attorneys General. As a result of the delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, the suit says. Warner Music Group Corp. is an American multinational entertainment and record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone and Facsimile: (918) 588-3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com WASTE PRO: Class Certification Denied in Hansen Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WASTE PRO OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02654-DCN (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge David C. Norton entered an order denying without prejudice the following motions: -- the plaintiff Daniel Hansen's motion to certify class; and -- the defendant Waste Pro of South Carolina, Inc.'s motion to exceed discovery limits The Court said, "At a hearing on the motions, held October 16, 2020, Hansen agreed to redefine the proposed class under his South Carolina Payment of Wages Act claim pending his receipt of certain records held by Waste Pro SC. As such, the court denies the motion to certify without prejudice and permits Hansen to refile the motion after he refines the definition of the proposed class. Based on the status of the motion to certify class, the parties did not present oral argument with respect to the motion to exceed discovery limits. As such, the court denies the motion without prejudice and permits Waste Pro SC to refile the motion in the event that it finds warranted discovery more extensive than that permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2J9rHqk at no extra charge.[CC] WEGMANS FOOD: Alexander Sues Over Deceptive Vanilla Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ Syuzanna Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-09148 (S.D.N.Y., November 1, 2020) arises from the Defendant's misleading front label representations of its product, in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells organic almond milk under its Wegmans brand purporting to taste like vanilla and be flavored exclusively and/or predominantly from vanilla beans. The Plaintiff alleges that the product's front label representation as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the product is not flavored predominantly from vanilla beans, which means it lacks the vanilla taste expected by consumers. Though the product's front label only references "Vanilla," the ingredient list identifies "Natural Vanilla Flavor With Other Natural Flavors." As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is sold at a premium and higher price, approximately no less than $4.29 per 64 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. owns and operates a chain of grocery stores. The Company offers products such as meat, seafood, deli, baked goods, health supplements, herbal remedies, pharmacy products, and wines. Wegmans Food Markets serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com WESTERN EXPRESS: Bedjan Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NORA BEDJAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.; a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2016078, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02223 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues in violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Western Express, Inc. provides transportation solutions. The Company offers truckload van, dedicated fleet, flatbed transportation, expedited truck and rail, and logistics services. Western Express serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard D. Marca, Esq. Jeff T. Olsen, Esq. Ankit H. Bhakta, Esq. VARNER & BRANDT LLP 3750 University Avenue, Suite 610 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 274-7777 Facsimile: (951) 274-7770 E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com Ankit.Bhakta@varnerbrandt.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Redmon Says Dishwashers Can Leak, Damage Property ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER REDMON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-06626 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold certain dishwashers with a uniform defect that can and has caused the dishwashers to leak and damage consumers' cabinetry, flooring and other property. The dishwashers were and are equipped with a pump motor diverter shaft seal oriented incorrectly, accelerating degradation of the seal and creating a buildup of debris that prevents the shaft seal spring from properly sealing the diverter shaft and sump. As a result of this uniform defect involving the failure of the diverter shaft seal to seal off water between the diverter shaft and sump, the Plaintiff's and Class members' dishwashers experience significant leakage through the shaft seal, flowing out of the dishwasher, damaging cabinetry, flooring, and other property. The Defendant knew or should have known that the Class dishwashers have a defectively designed and/or manufactured sump and diverter motor pump assembly yet failed to disclose the defect to the Plaintiff and Class members at the time of purchase or thereafter and continued to manufacture the dishwashers in the same defective manner, the suit says. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Whirlpool Corporation is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE, LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com greg@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com harper@whitfieldbryson.com alex@whitfieldbryson.com WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Seeks to Certify Inspectors Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF SCHWOERER and HERBERT STERLING III, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00375-PRW (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to: "all Inspectors employed by, or working on behalf of, Williams who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate with no overtime at any time in the last 3 years (the "Day Rate Inspectors"); 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 3. authorizing their proposed notice methods; 4. directing Williams to produce each Day Rate Inspector's contact information to the Plaintiffs' Counsel within 10 days; and 5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Day Rate Inspectors to join the case. The Plaintiffs allege that they and the Day Rate Inspectors are regularly working more than 40 hours per week, but never received any overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Williams's illegal day rate pay practice is widespread and systematically applied to themselves and the Day Rate Inspectors, the Plaintiffs add. The Williams Companies, Inc., is an American energy company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Its core business is natural gas processing and transportation, with additional petroleum and electricity generation assets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' opening motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34ju8yR at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the plaintiffs and the putative class members are: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Ste. 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405-516-7800 Facsimile: 405-516-7859 E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com WILLIS TOWERS: Replies to Bid for Writ of Certiorari Due Today -------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the responses to the petitions for a writ of certiorari are due by November 12, 2020. The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group ('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 15 actions are as follows: - Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the company's petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013, and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. - Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. - Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. - Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. - Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action and the Janvey action. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. - Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. - MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County), alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. - Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court’s Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court’s December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis’s motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. - Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin. - Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation and increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the accrued amount. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. - Settlement On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, the settlement and the related bar orders described below, if upheld through any appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet. The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Recei') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above (collectively, ‘Defendants’), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver by the Company of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-related litigation described above, and not just the Actions, but including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in the other actions above objected to the settlement, and a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20, 2017, after which the Court reserved decision. On August 23, 2017, the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders. Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeals was heard on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement, including the bar orders. On August 5, 2019, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed a petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the 'Petition'). On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit requested a response to the Petition. On August 29, 2019, the Receiver filed a response to the Petition. On December 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit granted the Petition (treating it as a petition for panel rehearing), withdrew its July 22, 2019 opinion, and substituted a new opinion that also affirmed the approval of the settlement, including the bar orders. On January 2, 2020, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed another petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the 'Second Petition'), in which the other plaintiff-appellants joined. On January 21, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied the Second Petition. On June 19, 2020, the plaintiff-appellants filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On September 10, 2020, the Supreme Court requested responses to the petitions for writ of certiorari, which are currently due by November 12, 2020. The Company will not make the $120 million settlement payment until the settlement is not subject to any further appeal. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WISCONSIN: Class OK'd in Suit over Inmates Serving Life Sentences ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS KING, THADDEUS KAROW, JAMES PRICE, CRAIG ALAN SUSSEK, and VICTORIANO HEREDIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STEVEN LANDREMAN, Acting Chairperson and Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; DANIELLE LACOST, Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; DOUGLAS DRANKIEWICZ, Commissioner of the Wisconsin Parole Commission; KEVIN CARR, Secretary-Designee of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections; and MARK HEISE, Director of the Bureau of Classification and Movement, in their official capacities, Case No. 3:19-cv-00338-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2); 2. certifying a class of: "all persons serving life sentences, or a term of at least 470 months, for crimes committed when they were children under the age of 18 in the custody of Wisconsin DOC and who are now, or will be, eligible for release under parole supervision"; 3. approving the following lawyers as class counsel: Avery Gilbert, Emma Smith Shakeshaft, Gregory T. Everts, Heather Holden Brooks, Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Laurence J. Dupuis, Martha Jahn Snyder, Patrick J. Proctor-Brown. R. Timothy Muth, Stephanie M. Moon, and Amy Lynn Lenz; 4. giving the Plaintiffs until November 3, 2020, to show cause why Carlos King, Thaddeus Karow, and Craig Alan Sussek shouldn't be dismissed from the case. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs may face an uphill battle in showing that the Defendants' standard for evaluating parole decisions violates the Eighth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause. But the court is persuaded that the plaintiffs' claims can be resolved collectively rather than one-by-one. So the court will grant the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2)." The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Wisconsin prisoners who committed crimes as minors and are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole. Plaintiffs contend that the standard the state uses for making their parole decisions violates their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and their right to have a jury determine facts that will increase their mandatory maximum or minimum sentence under the Sixth Amendment. They move for certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Wisconsin Parole Commission is the final authority for granting discretionary paroles or early release from prison for sentences handed down for crimes committed before Dec. 31, 1999. The Commission conducts interviews with eligible inmates sentenced to the custody of the DOC. A commissioner meets with an inmate individually and makes an independent decision on the possibility of a grant. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ThZ8sD at no extra charge.[CC] ZF ACTIVE: Adams Liability Suit Moved From E.D. Mich. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled Barry Adams, Larae Angel, Bobbi Jo Birk-LaBarge, John Colbert, Brian Collins, Dorothy Cooks, Gersen Damens, Joy Davis, James Dean, Dylan DeMoranville, Tiffany Ecklor, Tatiana Gales, Ricky Gerischer, Costanza Gonzalez, Lawrence Graziano, Paul Huitzil, Danny Hunt, Richard Kintzel, James Kneup, Steve Laveaux, Deloras McMurray, Carl Miller, Ravichandran Namakkal, Michael Nearing, Burton Reckles, John Robinson, Donna Ronan, Remigiusz Rundzio, John Sancomb, Dan Sutterfield, and Lore VanHouten, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC, ZF Passive Safety Systems US Inc, ZF Automotive US Inc., ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., ZF North America Inc., ZF Holdings B.V., ZF Friedrichshafen AG, STMicroelectronics N.V., STMicroelectronics International N.V., Stmicroelectronics Inc., Hyundai Motor Co Ltd., Hyundai Motor America Inc., Hyundai Mobis Co Ltd., Mobis Parts America LLC, Kia Motors Corporation, KIA Motors America, FCA U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A. INC., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Honda of America Mfg Inc., Honda R&D Co. Ltd., Honda R&D Americas, LLC, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, and Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-12699, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 21, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-09668-JAK-PLA to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts product liability claims involving motor vehicles. The case is assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Defendants are engaged in the automotive market business across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ZILLOW GROUP: Court Grants Class Status in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ZILLOW GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendants' motions to strike; 2. certifying a class of: "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow securities between November 17, 2014 and August 8, 2017, both dates inclusive, excluding Defendants herein, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest"; 2. appointing Jo Ann Offutt, Raymond Harris, and Johanna Choy as representatives of the class; 3. appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as class counsel; and 4. directing the parties to meet and confer on the form and manner of providing notice, and within 60 days of the entry of this order, submitting their proposal for notice to the class to the Court for approval. The Court is not aware of any other action brought on behalf of members of the putative class and the parties do not identify any. Moreover, the class will include a significant number of members and where that many identical complaints would have to be filed, "it is superior to concentrate claims through a class action in a single forum." Finally, the Court does not see any particular management difficulties with this case proceeding as a class action. The Plaintiffs have met the superiority requirement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Court says. The Plaintiffs bring this putative securities fraud class action against Zillow Group, Inc. and against Spencer Rascoff and Kathleen Phillips, Zillow's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer/Chief Legal Officer during the proposed class period. The thrust of their claims is that Zillow misrepresented its compliance with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. section 2601, 2607, and that the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated investors acquired Zillow's securities at inflated prices during the class period. The Plaintiffs allege that even though the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau began investigating Zillow for 6 RESPA violations in 2015, Zillow did not disclose that fact to investors until May 4, 2017, and even then, downplayed the seriousness of the situation. Zillow Group is an American online real estate database company that was founded in 2006. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35FBFHu at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***