/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201118.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 231
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Lemon Alleges Death From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Smith Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ACCURATE PAINTING: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Wrongful Termination
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces Marshall Suit in Calif. State Court
AMERICAN FAMILY: Charles' Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BALSAM BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Thorne Claims
BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
BAUSCH HEALTH: Indemnified by J&J in Shower to Shower(R) Litig.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Class Action Ongoing
BG PRODUCTS: Goodwin Fraud-Related Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
BOK FINANCIAL: Jan. 2022 Trail Date in Okla. Bondholders Suit
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Putative Class Action Remains Stayed
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: December 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHECKREDI OF KENTUCKY: Fay Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
COLISEUM INC: Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages & Kickbacks
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Burris Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CORDUROY IP: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
DISKAL INC: RJI Filed in Luis Wage-and-Hour Suit in New York
FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Bid to Decertify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
FMC CORPORATION: Appeal in Nikolov Putative Class Suit Pending
FOUR GREEN: Illescas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Workers
FREESTYLE BRANDS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GIANFRANCO PIZZERIA: Faces Aguirre Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HARSCO CORP: Natrona Resident Sues Over Dust Emissions
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Ongoing
HG FOODS: Brannan Files Suit in California State Court
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
KEY WEST BOATS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing
MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits over Fisher-Price Sleeper
MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Class Suits Ongoing
MONEX PLACE: Faces Vega TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MT OPERATING: Pennisi Alleges Retaliation Over COVID-19 Complaints
N.A.R. INC: Shaikh Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL RETAIL: Young Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
NEW YORK: Raymond Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Baker & Hostetler Atty. Discusses Ruling in Johnson
OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing
OKTA INC: O'Donnell Files Class Suit in California State Court
PLATINUM ACQUISITIONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Says
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Petrenko Files FDCPA Suit in New York
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sheridan Sues Over Seniors' Medical Lab Fees
RESTAURANTTORY: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RETROFITTING 360: Faces Ventura Employment Suit in California
RIO TINTO: Faces New Class Action Over Oyu Tolgoi Project
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
SARASAS WITAED: To Refund Tuition Fees for Victims' Families
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agar Class Action Ongoing
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing
SYMPHONY BRONZEVILLE: Appeals Court Rules in BIPA Class Action
TARGET CORP: Vanderhider Files Class Suit in Minnesota
TERMINIX GLOBAL: Hovell Files PI Suit in Tennessee
TRACY VW INC: Brightenstine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Arbitration Bid in Bickerstaff Suit Pending
UNIFIN INC: Edery Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
UNITED PARCEL: Hess Sues Over COVID-19 Workplace Safety Failures
UNITED STATES: U.S. Attorney's Office Prevails in Class Action
VASTA PLATFORM: Glancy Prongay Commenced Securities Class Action
WGAMES INC: Faces Halawani Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ZILLOW GROUP: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Offutt Securities Suit
[*] William J. Anthony Joins Blank Rome's NY Office as Partner
*********
3M COMPANY: Lemon Alleges Death From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
CATHY LEMON, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of
the Estate of TIMOTHY W. LEMON, deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03823-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2020) seeks damages for personal injury and death
resulting from the Decedent's exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It 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. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein
including death, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of the Decedent's exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products at various locations during the course of the Decedent's
training and firefighting activities.
The Lemon 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.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[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: Smith Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
HORACE SMITH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03825-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 30,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It 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. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
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 Smith 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.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
ACCURATE PAINTING: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALIX RODRIGUEZ v. ACCURATE PAINTING OF NORTHWEST FLORIDA INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-05920-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., Oct. 30, 2020) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
for equitable and monetary relief arising from the Defendant's
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Families
First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
On or about June 03, 2020, Supervisor Rodimiro Cardona informed the
Plaintiff that the owner of the business, Todd Webster, required
her to take the COVID-19 test. The next day, the Plaintiff took the
test in Destin, Florida and on or about June 07, 2020, the City
called Ms. Rodriguez and informed her that she resulted positive
for the COVID-19 test.
According to the complaint, the Defendant fired Plaintiff before
she ended her quarantine period when she was almost ready to return
to her work. The Plaintiff was unlawfully and retaliatory
terminated by her employer and was paid for only one week.
As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's protected
rights under the FMLA, when it failed to inform Plaintiff that she
was eligible to take leave under the FMLA because of her qualifying
medical condition. The Defendant further violated Plaintiff's
protected rights under the FFCRA when it failed to pay the
Plaintiff up to two weeks or 80 hours of paid sick leave in
specific circumstances related to the Plaintiff due to the COVID-19
diagnosis.
The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full-time painter
approximately from July 20, 2018, to June 15, 2020, or 99 weeks.
Accurate Painting of Northwest Florida Inc. is a construction
contractor providing full painting and related services to
residential and commercial accounts along the Emerald Coast of
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces Marshall Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adventist Health Simi
Valley. The case is styled as Michael Marshall and Jessica Szasz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Adventist Health Simi Valley, Case No. 56-2020-00546661-CU-NP-VTA
(Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., November 2, 2020).
The case type is stated as Non-PI/PD/WD Tort - Other.
Adventist Health Simi Valley is a California-based healthcare
services provider.[BN]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Charles' Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Debra Charles, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance
Company, S.I., Case No. 20LA000222, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court of McHenry County to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on November 2, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-50423 to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Insurance.
The case is assigned to Honorable Philip G. Reinhard.
American Family Mutual Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, home, life, umbrella, business,
health, and farm and ranch insurance products and services.
American Family Mutual Insurance serves customers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn St., Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam Arceneaux, Esq.
ICE MILLER LLP
One American Square, Suite 2900
Indianapolis, IN 46282
Telephone: (317) 236-2137
E-mail: adam.arceneaux@icemiller.com
- and -
Isaac J. Colunga, Esq.
ICE MILLER LLP
200 West Madison Street, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 726-7157
E-mail: isaac.colunga@icemiller.com
BALSAM BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Thorne Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BALSAM BRANDS INC., AND BALSAM BRANDS GROUP
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09473-VSB (S.D.N.Y., November 11, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' failure to design and operate its
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that during his visits to the Website,
https://www.balsamhill.com/, the last occurring in October, 2020,
in an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public.
Mr. Thorne alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination by failing to make its Website available
in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs. He
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.
Founded in 2006, privately-held Balsam Brands designs and sells
home decor and consumer products directly to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
settlement in the putative class action suit entitled, In re
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 15-cv-07658, remains subject to final court approval.
On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to
settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658).
In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.
The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor Rx Services, LLC ("Philidor").
On May 31, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658.
On December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers
and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they
agreed to resolve the securities action for $1.21 billion, subject
to final court approval.
Once approved by the court, the settlement will resolve and
discharge all claims against the Company in the class action.
As part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling
defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and
deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
On January 27, 2020 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.
A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 27, 2020 and
the settlement remains subject to final court approval.
On June 15, 2020, the Special Master issued his Report and
Recommendation granting Plaintiff's motions for (1) Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and (2) An Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Awards to Plaintiffs Pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4).
Bausch said, "In order to qualify for a settlement payment all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company securities during the class period must have submitted a
proof of claim and release form by May 6, 2020. The settlement
payment is being paid in accordance with the payment schedule
outlined in the settlement agreement. The opt-out litigations
discussed [] remain ongoing."
Additional information on the case is available at
http://www.valeantsecuritiessettlement.com/
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Indemnified by J&J in Shower to Shower(R) Litig.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that in
accordance with an indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson
will continue to vigorously defend Bausch in each of the remaining
actions related to Shower to Shower(R) body powder product that are
not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary
judgment.
Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product
liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower(R) body powder
product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to
dismissals, only twelve (12) of such product liability suits
currently remain pending.
Potential liability (including its attorneys' fees and costs)
arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full
indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the
Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson &
Johnson.
Ten of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that
the use of Shower to Shower(R) caused the plaintiffs to develop
ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.
The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design
defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach
of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in
action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of
consortium and/or punitive damages.
The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical
expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or
compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and
discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.
Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada
against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court
of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson
& Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower(R).
The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain
health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to
properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec).
The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages.
In accordance with the indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson
will continue to vigorously defend the Company in each of the
remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to
a grant of summary judgment.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Timber
Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al.
On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.
This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 18-cv-10246) ("Timber
Hill"), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company's
common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11,
2016.
On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 15-cv-07658).
On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on
February 13, 2019.
On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity
as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BG PRODUCTS: Goodwin Fraud-Related Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Deshoun Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BG Products, Inc., Case No.
20SL-CC04481, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court of St.
Louis County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on November 2, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-01569-PLC to the proceeding.
The suit alleges fraud.
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen.
BG Products, Inc. is a provider of automotive maintenance products
for vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan E. Brody, Esq.
BRODY AND CORNWELL
7730 Carondelet, Ste. 135
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 932-1068
Facsimile: (314) 288-0338
E-mail: bbrody@brodyandcornwell.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Robert Wray, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Fessler, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY LLP
2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: cwray@shb.com
efessler@shb.com
BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
subsidiary BOKF, NA, continues to defend class action suits related
to extended overdraft fees charged by the bank.
On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.
On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas
action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument
on October 8, 2019.
On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action.
The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff
has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New
Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: Jan. 2022 Trail Date in Okla. Bondholders Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trial date on
the remaining claim in the putative class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
initiated by BOKF, NA's bondholders is set on January 18, 2022.
On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
putative class action representing a different set of municipal
securities.
The bondholders in this second action allege two individuals
purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the
SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60
million of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as
indenture trustee.
The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller
of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained
of in the New Jersey action.
BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this
second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings
against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is
cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is
not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by
counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the claims of these
bondholders.
On July 8, 2020, the Court ruled on the motion and dismissed six of
Plaintiffs' seven causes of action.
On September 9, 2020 the Court entered a Scheduling Order for
proceeding on the remaining claim with a January 18, 2022 trial
date.
BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Putative Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action in
New Jersey initiated by two bondholders is still stayed.
On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.
The New Jersey Federal District Action remains stayed with no
current deadlines pending.
On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the District Court of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.
The Tulsa County District Court Action is pending on BOKF, NA's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Third Amended Petition.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that BOKF, NA, the Plan
Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment
Management, Inc., continue to defend a putative class action
initiated by three former employees of BOKF, NA.
On March 7, 2020, three former employees sued BOKF, NA, the Plan
Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment
Management, Inc., a subsidiary of BOKF, NA, alleging that the
Defendants included proprietary investment products as investment
options in the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, whose fees were too high and
performance too low, for the purpose of earning fees.
The action is brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
Plan Participants. The action is pending on the defendants' motion
to dismiss.
Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and
that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: December 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
CIVIL ACTION
Consolidated Case No. 2019-07222
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of BrightView Holdings,
Inc. ("BrightView" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to
BrightView's Offering Materials for its initial public offering of
24,495,000 shares.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, that Lead
Plaintiff Gregory S. McComas, Sr., on behalf of himself and the
proposed Settlement Class,1 and BrightView and the other defendants
in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of
$11,500,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its
entirety (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jeffrey S. Saltz,
remotely through video conferencing technology, at 1:30 p.m. EST on
December 14, 2020 (the "Settlement Hearing"), to, among other
things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the
proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss
the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated August 27, 2020; (iii) approve the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund; and (iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement
Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to
attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.
If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these
documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement,
www.BrightViewSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173006
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 883-8244
Online Submissions: www.BrightViewSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Co-Lead Counsel:
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street
Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
www.pomlaw.com
(312) 377-1181
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com
(617) 531-3933
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than
January 27, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than November 23, 2020.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application
must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties
in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they
are filed and received no later than November 23, 2020.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
1 All terms not defined herein shall have the definition assigned
to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
August 27, 2020. [GN]
CHECKREDI OF KENTUCKY: Fay Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CheckRedi of
Kentucky, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Patrick J. Fay, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CheckRedi of
Kentucky, LLC; Cumberland Farms, Inc.; Case No.
6:20-cv-02068-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
CheckRedi of Kentucky, LLC is an electronic payment processing and
debt collection agency located in Lexington, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
COLISEUM INC: Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages & Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. THE COLISEUM, INC. d/b/a THE COLISEUM and
ALAN MARKOVITZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-12981-LJM-KGA (E.D.
Mich., November 6, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants for its alleged evasion of minimum wage laws in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Michigan Minimum
Wage Law, the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, and the
Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that in order to evade minimum wage laws, the
Defendants wrongfully classified her and other workers as
"independent contractors", and never paid her any hourly wage for
any of the hours she worked for them.
Moreover, the Defendants employed unlawful policies and practices,
such as threatening to fine the Plaintiff if she failed to work
three shifts per week, charging late fees if the Plaintiff did not
arrive to her shift early, and requiring her to kick back a portion
of her tips received to the managers, bouncers, disc jockeys, and
house mothers. Such fees and fines constitute illegal "kickbacks"
to the Defendants under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to maintain
payroll records.
The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer
from around May 2014, files this action under a fictitious name and
seeks to proceed anonymously. The Plaintiff's identity will be
disclosed to Defendants privately in order to allow them to assess
and defend the claims.
The Coliseum, Inc. d/b/a The Coliseum operate an adult
entertainment club owned and operated by Alan Markovitz, who
executed the payment policies of the workers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
221 North Main St., Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Tel: (734) 929-4313
E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
hollander@bwlawonline.com
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Burris Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHERYL K. BURRIS, individually and in behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH
CARE, INC., THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, and TRUSTAFF
TRAVEL NURSES, LLC, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-09312 (S.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 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants approximately from
April 13, 2020 until June 6, 2020 as a resident nurse.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
approximately 46 hours per week, and worked a spread-of-hours
greater than 10 per day for four days during her final workweek.
The Defendants made a promise to pay the Plaintiff approximately
$49.00 per hour up to 40 hours per week then $124.34 for the hours
worked above 40 each week. However, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage, spread-of-hours
compensation, and overtime compensation of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient
records, failed to post or keep posted notices explaining the
minimum wage rights of its employees, and failed to provide them
with a notice and acknowledgement at the time of hiring.
The Corporate Defendants are associated and are joint employers
operating as hospitals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Tel: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
CORDUROY IP: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corduroy IP LLC. The
case is styled as Darren MacDonald, Alan Maycock, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corduroy IP LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02135-SPL (D.
Ariz., Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Corduroy is located at 3335 N Rose Cir Dr, Phoenix, AZ.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th St.
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
BROWN PATENT LAW
15100 N 78th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: (602) 529-8347
Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com
DISKAL INC: RJI Filed in Luis Wage-and-Hour Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial interference was filed on November 2, 2020,
in the case styled as Tobias Luis, Santiago Hernandez, and Efrain
Campoverde, individually and on behalf of the putative class
members v. Diskal Inc. d/b/a Georgia Diner, Case No. 708875/2020
(N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 30, 2020).
The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime premium pay, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums and for
failure to provide proper wage statements or wage notices pursuant
to the New York Labor Law.
The case is assigned to Judge Joseph Risi.
Diskal Inc. operates as a restaurant. The Restaurant provides
lunch, breakfast, and dinner, desserts, beverages, and a full
service bar. Diskal Inc. also offers catering services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Ste 1503
New York, NY 10006
The Defendant is represented by:
CLIFTON BUDD & DEMARIA LLP
350 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 687-7410
FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Bid to Decertify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jamal Stephenson, et al.,
On behalf of himself and All others similarly situated, v. Family
Solutions of Ohio, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02017-PAB (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Pamela A. Barker entered an order:
1. denying the Defendants' Motion to Strike Unverified
Exhibits;
2. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental QMHS
Roster and Notice;
3. denying the Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint and to Modify the Collective Action
Class; and
4. denying without prejudice subject to refiling the
Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class Conditionally
Certified under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Court said, "During the upcoming status conference with counsel
on November 23, 2020, the Court will address an appropriate
deadline for refiling this Motion after the close of the re-opened
notice period for potential QMHS opt-ins. The Plaintiffs' Motion is
based on the same arguments and evidence presented in their Motion
to Modify the FLSA Collective Action. Th Plaintiffs' Motion is
denied. The Plaintiffs' undue delay in filing the Motion, and the
undue prejudice to the Defendants that would result from modifying
the FLSA conditional class at this stage of the proceedings. In so
holding, the Court notes that the same reasons for denying
modification of the FLSA conditional class apply with equal force
to Plaintiffs' request to modify their Rule 23 state-law class.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint is denied."
A copy of the Court's Memorandum, Opinion and Order dated Nov. 4,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IwwIJP
at no extra charge.[CC]
FMC CORPORATION: Appeal in Nikolov Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the notice of
appeal filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Bisser
Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al., is pending.
On October 18, 2019, purported stockholders of Livent amended a
putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to add FMC Corporation as
a defendant.
The operative complaint in that case, Bisser Nikolov v. Livent
Corp., et al. makes similar substantive allegations as the state
court case, including alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages
and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Livent IPO offering documents.
Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Nikolov case on November 18, 2019. Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 30,
2019.
On July 2, 2020, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the federal complaint in its entirety and
on July 31, 2020, Plantiffs filed a notice of appeal.
FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The
company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
FOUR GREEN: Illescas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ILLESCAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FOUR GREEN FIELDS LLC, d/b/a AGAVE RESTAURANT, and JACK
SOBEL, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-09426 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10,
2020), is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated restaurant workers seeking to recover
unpaid earned wages and unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt workers
work or have worked as bus boys and assistant bartenders for Four
Green Fields LLC d/b/a Agave Restaurant, a company owned and
operated by Defendant Sobel.
The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective seek injunctive and
declaratory relief against the Defendants' unlawful actions,
compensation for their failure to pay earned wages, minimum wages
and liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant
to the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff worked at Agave from 2010 through October 2019. From
the beginning of his employment with the Defendants through 2013,
he was employed as a busboy.
Agave is a Mexican restaurant located at 140 7th Ave. S., New York.
Jack Sobel is the owner of Agave.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
FREESTYLE BRANDS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FREESTYLE BRANDS,
LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. FREESTYLE BRANDS, LLC,
D/B/A FREESTYLEUSA.COM, Case No. 2:20-cv-05388 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Freestyle Brands, LLC is a privately held group founded by a team
of executives with experience in the watch and action sports
businesses, as well as in building sport and lifestyle brands in
various categories over the course of the last thirty years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
GIANFRANCO PIZZERIA: Faces Aguirre Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULINO AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIANFRANCO PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, INC. and
ANGELO CARILLO, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-09311 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 5, 2020) alleges the Defendants of willful violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act for denying him his lawfully earned
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a pizza maker from
in or around 2013 until in or around March 2020, and then again
from in or around May 2020 until in or around September 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours. However, the
Defendants never tracked the hours he worked nor required him to
record his time. Instead, the Defendants paid him a fixed hourly
rate only for all hours he worked, regardless of the number of
hours he worked each week. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants willfully failed to pay him overtime at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 each
week.
Moreover, the Defendants unlawfully withheld all cash and credit
card tips received by the restaurant's employees at the counter and
did not distribute any of the tips to the Defendants' employees who
worked at the counter, the Plaintiff alleges.
In addition, the Plaintiff was not provided by the Defendant any
notice containing his rate of pay, the designated payday, or other
information required by the NYLL at the time the Plaintiff was
hired or at any time thereafter, and was not provided with wage
statements each wage payment listing his regular and overtime rates
of pay, the number of regular and overtime hours worked and other
information required by the NYLL.
Gianfranco Pizzeria and Restaurant, Inc. operates as a restaurant
selling pizza and other Italian cuisine to its customers. Angelo
Carillo is an officer, director, shareholder and/or person in
control of Gianfranco Pizzeria, who exercises significant control
over the company's operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
Katz Melinger PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 460-0047
Fax: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com
HARSCO CORP: Natrona Resident Sues Over Dust Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that one of the
residents of Natrona has filed a punitive class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive
relief due to alleged dust emissions at the site, which the Company
believes is without merit.
The lawsuit was filed on October 29, 2020.
Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products. The company's
operations fall into three operating segments: Infrastructure, Mill
Services and Gas and Fluid Control. The company is based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action styled, Boynton Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.
On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and alleges that the Company made certain
false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks
concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose
that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from
the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice.
The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
the class action.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral
arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December
6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the
class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being
refiled. On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss.
On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
the Court's judgment. Defendants' opposition brief was filed on
February 18, 2020, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
April 2, 2020. On May 18, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking
leave to file a sur-reply, on May 21, 2020, Co-Lead Plaintiffs
filed an opposition brief, and on May 28, 2020, Defendants filed a
reply in support of the motion.
On September 30, 2020, the Court denied the Defendants' motion
seeking leave to file a sur-reply. Co-Lead Plaintiffs' motion to
amend the Court’s judgment remains pending with the Court.
The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified
real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real
estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing
and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California.
HG FOODS: Brannan Files Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HG Foods LLC. The
case is styled as Jamie Brannan, on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. HG Foods LLC DBA Burger King, Case No. VCU284913 (Cal.
Super., Tulare Cty., November 2, 2020).
A case management conference is set for January 4, 2021.
HG Foods LLC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
555 12th Street, Ste. 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
E-mail: lvannote@scalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Irene V. Fitzgerald, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: (559) 244-7536
E-mail: ifitzgerald@littler.com
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the securities class action suit headed by
Edgardo Canez is pending.
On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our
press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a result of the
failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting
revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain
allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection
with his former position with MiMedx, Inc.
The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock
during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged
misleading statements.
On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead
plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") on behalf of the putative class.
On November 18, 2019, Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
a putative class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Company securities from May 23, 2014
through May 29, 2019, filed an amended class action complaint
against the Company, and certain current and former directors and
officers (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the
previously filed complaint.
The Amended Complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs
and unspecified damages. On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a
motion to dismiss, and on March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to
dismiss was completed.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending.
Intelligent said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross,
Georgia.
KEY WEST BOATS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Key West Boats, Inc.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Key West Boats, Inc. doing business
as: www.keywestboatsinc.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-05420 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Key West Boats Inc. is a boat manufacturing company. The Company
offers fisherman boats. Key West Boats serves customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35.
On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).
In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification.
On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court
agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for
Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in Utah.
As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiff's amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer
remains a defendant in the case).
The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim,
alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its
products and is attempting to use those patents in an
anti-competitive manner. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
amended complaint on November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response
to the Company's Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the
Company filed a reply brief on January 10, 2019.
The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three
of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim,
unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of
unregistered securities.
On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 28, 2020,
and as of March 17, 2020, the Motion was fully briefed by the
parties.
The parties are now waiting for the court to schedule oral
argument, or the court may decide the matter on the parties’
briefs only.
On May 6, 2020, the court issued a formal scheduling order to
confirm the parties' agreement on a schedule for discovery and
other litigation matters, and initial discovery has begun and will
continue per the order.
LifeVantage said, "The Company has not established a loss
contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is
not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution
of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition."
LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skin care products. The company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.
MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits over Fisher-Price Sleeper
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a number of putative class action lawsuits related to the
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper.
A number of putative class action lawsuits are pending against
Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false
advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud,
and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper").
In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants.
The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 15
statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the
Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep.
The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge for
pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts’ Multi-District
Litigation program.
Thirty-six additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price,
Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper
caused the fatalities of or injuries to forty children.
Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also
received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional
plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et
al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale
of the Sleeper.
The defendants in the derivative action are R. Todd Bradley,
Richard Dickson, Joseph J. Euteneuer, Adriana Cisneros, Michael J.
Dolan, Ynon Kreiz, Soren T. Laursen, Ann Lewnes, Roger Lynch,
Dominic Ng, Judy D. Olian and Vasant M. Prabhu. In August 2020, the
derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the
class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief.
Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range
of loss cannot be made at this time.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Class Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to a whistleblower letter and
claim that the company misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.
In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate
complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc., and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by
Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower
letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.
The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v.
Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are
substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of
the class action lawsuits.
The defendants in the derivative action are Ynon Kreiz, Margaret H.
Georgiadis, Joseph J. Euteneuer, Joseph B. Johnson, R. Todd
Bradley, Adriana Cisneros, Michael J. Dolan, Trevor A. Edwards,
Frances D. Fergusson, Soren T. Laursen, Ann Lewnes, Kathy W. Loyd,
Roger Lynch, Dominic Ng, Judy D. Olian, Vasant M. Prabhu, Dean A.
Scarborough, Christopher A. Sinclair, Mattel, Inc., and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Subsequently, a nearly identical derivative action was filed by a
different stockholder against the same defendants. The second
lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a complaint
making unrelated allegations in a previously filed lawsuit already
pending in Delaware federal court (Lombardi v. Kreiz, et al.,
amended complaint filed April 16, 2020).
In May 2020, the derivative actions were consolidated and stayed
pending further developments in the class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes
that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this
time.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MONEX PLACE: Faces Vega TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONEX PLACE WELLNESS, INC. d/b/a MR NICE
GUY, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-02134 (C.D. Cal., November 5,
2020) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 7151 over the past year in an attempt to promote
its cannabis products. The Defendant allegedly caused other text
messages to be sent to individuals without obtaining their prior
express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused actual harm to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks for
himself and each member of the Class statutory damages and treble
damages for each and every violation as well as an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging
activity.
Monex Place Wellness, Inc. sells cannabis products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
MT OPERATING: Pennisi Alleges Retaliation Over COVID-19 Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PENNISI v. MT OPERATING OF NEW JERSEY, LLC; TOM VALENZANO;
and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. MER-L-001931-20 (N.J. Super.,
Mercer Cty., Oct. 30, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated individuals arising from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Conscientious Employee
Protection Act (CEPA) due to illegal retaliatory discharge.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 2012 where his duties
involved traveling to construction sites to supervise and inspect
work.
According to the complaint when COVID-19 began spreading, the
Defendants did not supply personal protective equipment (PPE) to
its employees, despite multiple requests. Mr. Pennisi was then
tested positive for COVID-19 as a result of his exposure working
for the Defendants. He was furloughed by the Defendants three
additional times, and not permitted to return to work until August
17, 2020. He was out of work without pay for nearly five months.
In making complaints about the health and safety issues mentioned,
the Plaintiff engaged in protected activity pursuant to CEPA when
he disclosed, objected to and refused to participate in activities
and practices which he reasonably believed were in violation of a
law. Further, the suit says that the direct retaliation against the
Plaintiff as a result of having engaged in protected conduct under
CEPA entitles him to claim compensatory and punitive damages under
CEPA.
MT Operating of New Jersey, LLC is a business operating in the
State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
N.A.R. INC: Shaikh Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.A.R., Inc. The case
is styled as Nadia Shaikh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. N.A.R., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05418
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
N.A.R., Inc., which also does business as North American Recovery,
is a debt collection agency located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
NATIONAL RETAIL: Young Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY YOUNG, an individual v. NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION,
INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; FRANCIS J WALSH III, an
individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02354 (C.D.
Cal., November 11, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated arising from the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and the California Business & Professions Code.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime wages,
engaged in employment discrimination because of race, engaged in
wrongful termination, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent
harassment and discrimination, failed to pay wages for the last
week of work, failed to provide meal and rest periods, and engaged
in unfair competition.
The Plaintiff is an African American who was employed as a shift
supervisor for the Defendants in Riverside County, California.
National Retail Transportation, Inc. provides transportation
services. The Company offers trucking, store delivery, pool point
distribution, and pier drayage services. National Retail
Transportation serves in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Alejandro Marin, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
alejandro@kristensenlaw.com
NEW YORK: Raymond Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al. The
case is styled as Latoya Raymond, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision; Anthony J. Annucci, Acting
Commissioner, in his official capacity; The State of New York; Case
No. 9:20-cv-01380-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government
responsible for the care, confinement, and rehabilitation of
inmates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew A. Stecker, Esq.
PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK – Buffalo Office
14 Lafayette Square, Suite 510
Buffalo, NY 14203
Phone: (716) 854-1007
Fax: (716) 854-1008
Email: astecker@plsny.org
- and -
Michael E. Cassidy, Esq.
PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK - Plattsburgh
24 Margaret Street, Suite 9
Plattsburgh, NY 12901
Phone: (518) 561-3088
Fax: (518) 561-3262
Email: mcassidy@plsny.org
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Baker & Hostetler Atty. Discusses Ruling in Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that class action
litigation is fueled largely by the availability of often large
attorney fee awards. To get a class action case in the first place,
however, attorneys bringing them often entice a potential
individual plaintiff into the role of class representative with the
prospect of a monetary "incentive award," usually in the thousands
of dollars. Indeed, the giving of such awards has become
commonplace or even routine. But is it lawful?
Apparently not. In Johnson v. NPAS Solutions LLC, Case No. 18-12344
(11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020), the court dealt with what it described
as a fairly typical settlement of a class action approved by a
Florida district court. The case itself involved claimed violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227,
for making automatic telephone calls without the recipient's
consent. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had made such
calls to 179,642 telephone numbers and sought relief under the TCPA
on behalf of a class.
The case quickly settled, as such cases often do. The defendant
agreed to pay a total of $1.43 million to settle all claims. The
plaintiff's attorneys were to receive 30 percent of that amount
plus their expenses. The class representative would receive $6,000
as an incentive award and the remaining amounts were to be
distributed among the class members who filed claims.
The court saved us from doing all the math. The attorneys were to
receive $429,600 plus about $3,500 in expenses. The class
representative was promised $6,000 as an incentive award. If every
class member had submitted a claim, they all would have received
$7.97. Because there was a claims procedure and just fewer than
10,000 individuals filed claims, they each were to get about $79,
with those who did not file claims getting nothing.
When notice went out to the class of preliminary approval, one
individual objected. She challenged both the attorney fee award and
the incentive. The district court approved the settlement in a
relatively brief order, and it overruled her objections with little
comment. The objector appealed.
As to the attorney fee award, she first noted that the cutoff for
objections was two weeks before the plaintiff's attorneys were to
submit their attorney fee petition, depriving her of the detail
needed to challenge it meaningfully. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit found that indeed violated due process (itself
a significant ruling), but noted that even when given an
opportunity to explain how the award was objectionable, she had
failed to do so. Still, later in the opinion, the court noted that
the district court had failed to set forth its rationale for
approving the award, and it remanded for further analysis and
findings of fact.
The more interesting part of the decision related to the incentive
award to the named plaintiff. The court made no bones about the
fact that incentive awards had become a common feature of class
action settlements. Indeed, it found that the district court had
done nothing that other courts were doing as well.
"We don't necessarily fault the district court -- it handled the
class action settlement here in pretty much exactly the same way
that hundreds of courts before it have handled similar
settlements."
The Court of Appeals reviewed Supreme Court precedent on the issue
of incentive awards, focusing in particular on two older cases,
Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882), and Central Railroad &
Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885). Based on those cases
and others, the Eleventh Circuit found that while there was strong
support for attorney fee awards in class actions, individual
incentive awards were "decidedly objectionable" and invalid.
Indeed, they appear to have been created "out of whole cloth" by
the judiciary and perpetuated based on the relatively low incentive
for objectors to challenge them. As to the fact that such awards
were so routinely allowed, the court commented, "[S]o far as we can
tell, that state of affairs is a product of inertia and
inattention, not adherence to law."
As the court concluded, "Although it's true that such awards are
commonplace in modern class action litigation, that doesn't make
them lawful, and it doesn't free us to ignore Supreme Court
precedent forbidding them."
One other aspect of the court's decision bears noting. The Eleventh
Circuit also noted that the incentive awards create a conflict of
interest between the purported class representative and the class,
which is very likely. A class representative who is all but
guaranteed to receive an award of thousands of dollars is likely to
be less interested in the best result for the other claimants
potentially receiving smaller amounts.
The Johnson case will certainly be of great significance in the
Eleventh Circuit, as it removes one incentive to bring class action
litigation in the first place. As it gains acceptance across the
country, it likely will have a great impact on the volume of class
litigation, particularly those cases involving weaker claims where
the defendant settles simply to avoid the cost of class
litigation.
The bottom line: Incentive awards indeed have incentivized the
bringing of class action litigation, but their validity is now in
doubt. [GN]
OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Ocwen is involved in a TCPA class action that involves claims
against trustees of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities trusts
(RMBS trusts) trusts based on vicarious liability for Ocwen's
alleged non-compliance with the TCPA.
The trustees have sought indemnification from Ocwen based on the
vicarious liability claims.
Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against the company
in relation to its TCPA compliance.
At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of existing
lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount accrued or the
potential impact such lawsuits may have on the company or its
operations.
Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
Ocwen said, "If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not
successful, our business, reputation, financial condition,
liquidity and results of operations could be materially and
adversely affected."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.
OKTA INC: O'Donnell Files Class Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Okta, Inc. et al. The
case is styled as Matthew O'Donnell, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Okta,
Inc., a corporation, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No.
CGC20587665 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 30, 2020).
A case management conference is set for April 7, 2021 before Judge
Samuel K. Feng.
Okta, Inc. develops internet applications software. The Company
offers automated user management, integration, mobile
identification, multifactor authentication, and reporting software.
Okta serves customers worldwide.[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
PLATINUM ACQUISITIONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLATINUM ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09287-AJN (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.
The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website,
www.tacticaltraps.com, on or around September 2020 with the intent
of browsing and potentially making a purchase by using a popular
screen reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access, he was
denied access similar to that of a sighted individual despite his
efforts. The Plaintiff was effectively barred from being able to
enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation due to the Website's lack of a variety of features
and accommodations.
The Plaintiff alleges that because of the Defendant's failure to
comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 and
maintain a Website that is accessible to members of a protected
class, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was harmed by the
Defendant's unlawful conduct. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks damages,
fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
Platinum Acquisitions, LLC is a gun concealment furnishing company
that owns and operates the Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Petrenko Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Vladimir Petrenko, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional
Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09338 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. provides healthcare revenue cycle
management solutions. The Company offers insurance follow-up,
medical debt collections, revenue cycle consulting, skip tracing,
and practice management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sheridan Sues Over Seniors' Medical Lab Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN J. SHERIDAN JR., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CAM-L-003586-20 (N.J. Super.,
Camden Cty., Oct. 30, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
The complaint contends that the Defendants refuse to address
systemic issues in its computerized testing, reporting, and billing
systems for individual consumers, including vulnerable senior
citizens. Rather than processing the lab fees of senior citizens as
required through Medicare, the Defendants refuse to process the
fees through Medicare, charge senior citizens' credit cards for the
entire and unprocessed amount of the fees, and refuse to respond to
senior citizens' repeated efforts to obtain resolution of the
problem unless they retain legal counsel.
The Plaintiff, 75, was previously disabled, currently suffers from
vertigo, and lives on Social Security payments of barely $1200
monthly.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated
operates test laboratories throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
c/o Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C.
30B Vreeland Road, Ste. 100
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (917) 621-5795
E-mail: StephenSimoniLAW@gmail.com
RESTAURANTTORY: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restauranttory, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Restauranttory, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09328 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Restauranttory offers commercial food service equipment, restaurant
supplies, catering supplies, and concession equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
RETROFITTING 360: Faces Ventura Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrofitting 360 Inc.
The case is styled as Fernando Romero, on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Retrofitting 360 Inc., Case No.
56-2020-00546674-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., November 2,
2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of state labor laws.
Retrofitting 360 Inc. is a full-service, seismic retrofit
construction company based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 S. Spring Street, Ste. 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com
RIO TINTO: Faces New Class Action Over Oyu Tolgoi Project
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Ker at afr.com reports that Rio Tinto has been hit with a new
class action in the US that accuses the miner of making materially
false and misleading statements about cost and schedule blowouts on
Mongolia's Oyu Tolgoi project.
Departing Rio chief Jean-Sebastien Jacques and Rio's copper boss,
Arnaud Soirat, have been named as individual defendants in the case
alongside Rio and Turquoise Hill Resources, the subsidiary through
which Rio gets exposure to Oyu Tolgoi.
The case is partly built on claims made by former Rio employee
Richard Bowley, first revealed in The Australian Financial Review,
who told a London court he warned Rio of the cost blowouts 74 days
prior to an October 2018 market filing in which Mr Soirat told
investors the project was "on budget and schedule''.
A giant underground expansion of Oyu Tolgoi was expected to cost
$US5.3 billion ($7.4 billion) when announced in 2015, but progress
on the expansion started to struggle in 2017 and 2018 as weaker
than expected geology combined with slower than expected delivery
of certain aspects.
The cost of the project has since blown out to about $US6.8
billion, and it will be delivered close to two years later than was
envisaged in 2015.
The cost and schedule blowouts have left Turquoise Hill Resources,
which owns 66 per cent of the Mongolian mine, without sufficient
funds to complete the expansion.
Rio owns 50.79 per cent of Turquoise Hill and has told the company
to solve its funding problems via a multi billion dollar equity
raising; a prospect that minority shareholders in Turquoise Hill
have long feared, triggering a massive slump in the company's
shares in 2019.
The plaintiff in the class action is New Jersey resident Anthony
Franchi, who claims Rio and Turquoise Hill's disclosure
short-comings led to him purchasing Turquoise Hill securities at
"artificially inflated prices".
Mr Franchi bought $US167 worth of Turquoise Hill shares in the
first half of 2019.
The class action is for investors who bought Turquoise Hill shares
between July 17, 2018 and July 31, 2019.
Much of the complaint hinges on disclosures made by Rio in the
second half of 2018, including Mr Soirat's copper briefing of
October 2, 2018, in which Oyu Tolgoi was said to be "on budget and
schedule''.
Within two weeks of that briefing, Turquoise Hill and Rio made
their first concessions that production from the mine could be
delayed.
Those concessions were initially minor, but the full extent of the
cost and schedule blowouts was gradually revealed through a series
of market disclosures between October 2018 and August 2019.
As well as wanting to protect the share prices of Rio and Turquoise
Hill, the class action alleges the companies were motivated to
conceal the truth about the project's problems in a bid to protect
their "rocky" relationship with the Mongolian government.
Mongolia owns 34 per cent of the project, but has been unable to
fund its share of construction costs and eagerly wants production
to begin to boost the wealth of its people.
"Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto had a rocky relationship with the
Republic of Mongolia, with governmental leaders repeatedly
expressing concerns about the economic benefit to Mongolia from the
project and Oyu Tolgoi's ultimate profitability and cost," said the
claim.
"As a result, the Mongolian government was highly sensitive to
delays in underground production and increased development costs
both before and during the class period, and its representatives
repeatedly expressed concerns about the progress of the project and
the terms under which the Project was being developed.
"This created a strong incentive for defendants to conceal the
truth. Earlier
disclosure of the true facts would only have increased Mongolian
government scrutiny of the project."
Rio said it believed the class action claim was "without merit".
The filing of a class action over Rio and Turquoise Hill's
disclosures is not a massive surprise, given law firms in North
America have been sniffing around the subject for more than a
year.
But the legal firm representing Mr Franchi - Hach Rose, Schirripa
and Cheverie LLP - was not among those reported last year to be
investigating the topic, suggesting further claims on the topic
could yet come forward.
Mr Jacques is scheduled to exit Rio before April 2021 after
agreeing to resign in the wake of this year's Juukan Gorge
scandal.
Class action suggests Mr Jacques will join Tom Albanese on the list
of Rio chief executives who spend their retirement defending class
actions and other lawsuits in the US legal system.
Mr Albanese has been named as a defendant alongside Rio in fraud
claim brought by the US market regulator - the Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC) - in October 2017.
The SEC believes Rio should have announced impairments on its
failed Mozambique coal investment sooner than it actually did in
early 2013.
A class action into that Mozambique scandal was also filed the US
court system in October 2017, but Rio had that class action
dismissed in June 2019. [GN]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on October
7, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company") (NYSE:
RCL) and certain executive officers (collectively, "Defendants").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean securities
from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class") we encourage you
to contact the Firm.
The lawsuit, captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 20-cv-24111
(S.D. Fla.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client City of Riviera
Beach General Employees Retirement System ("Riviera Beach") against
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company")
(NYSE: RCL) and certain executive officers (collectively,
"Defendants"). The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean
securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class").
Royal Caribbean is the world's second largest cruise company,
operating 61 cruise ships which visit over 1,000 destinations
across all seven continents. Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in
China, cruise companies, including Royal Caribbean, began to cancel
voyages in that region, and customer bookings were declining
globally as vacationers worried about the global spread of the
virus.
The Action alleges that, from February 4, 2020 through March 17,
2020, Defendants failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's decrease in bookings outside China, instead maintaining
that it was only experiencing a slowdown in bookings from China.
The Action further alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's inadequate policies and
procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships.
The truth about the scope of the impact that COVID-19 had on the
Company's overall bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to
prevent the virus' spread on its ships was revealed through a
series of disclosures. First, on February 13, 2020, Royal Caribbean
issued a press release stating that it had canceled 18 voyages in
Southeast Asia due to recent travel restrictions and further
warning that recent bookings had been softer for its broader
business. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 3
percent.
Second, on February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean filed its 2019 Form
10-K, indicating that COVID-19 concerns were negatively impacting
its overall business. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell
over 14 percent.
Third, on March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020
financial guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550
million, and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due
to the proliferation of COVID-19, further revealing that COVID-19
was severely impacting Royal Caribbean's 2020 customer booking and
that its safety measures were inadequate to prevent the spread of
the virus on its ships. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell
over 14 percent.
Fourth, on March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean's largest competitor,
Carnival, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations,
prompting concern that Royal Caribbean would follow suit. At the
same time, Royal Caribbean also cancelled two cruises, beginning a
series of cancellations and suspensions to follow. On this news,
Royal Caribbean shares fell almost 32 percent.
Fifth, on March 14, 2020, Royal Caribbean announced a suspension of
all global cruises for 30 days. On this news, Royal Caribbean stock
fell over 7 percent.
Sixth, on March 16, 2020, the Company revealed that global
operations could be suspended longer than anticipated, announcing
the cancellations of two additional cruises throughout April and
into May. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 7
percent.
Finally, on March 18, 2020, analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean's
stock and slashed their price targets. On this news, Royal
Caribbean shares fell more than 19 percent.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean securities
during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member
of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida no later than
December 7, 2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery
for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class
member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.
Riviera Beach is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents
many of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN]
SARASAS WITAED: To Refund Tuition Fees for Victims' Families
------------------------------------------------------------
Khaosod English reports that the school embroiled in an ongoing
criminal investigation for a series of violence against children
agreed on Oct. 12 to refund all tuition fees for the victims'
families, after parents told the public prosecutor to file a
class-action suit against the management.
Attapon Truektrong of the Private Education Commission, which
oversees privately owned schools, said the directors of the Sarasas
Witaed Ratchaphruek School already paid compensation to some of the
parents whose children were mistreated by the school staff -- some
of whom were working without license.
"The school has taken action as committed in the agreement with the
parents," Attapon said. "They are giving refunds to the parents.
The commission has also instructed the school to improve classroom
conditions and overcrowding problems, while the lawsuit between the
school and parents will proceed accordingly."
Attapon did not mention the amount of money refunded by the school.
Under the agreement, affected students will be refunded this year's
tuition fees and paid for their physical and mental treatment.
Tuition at Sarasas Witaed Ratchaphruek School, which offers
international and bilingual curriculums, is reportedly over 100,000
baht per semester.
Twenty parents of the assaulted children also submitted a petition
to the Attorney General Office, asking prosecutors to help file a
civil lawsuit against the school. The parents demanded 5 million
baht compensation from the school for negligence.
But prosecutor spokesman Prayut Petchkhun said it is too early to
launch a class-action lawsuit against the school since
investigators are still collecting evidence. He said the office
will help interview the victims to speed up the process.
Deputy education minister Kanokwan Wilawan said the ministry will
ask school administrators to give updates about the compensation
payouts.
"We don't know how many parents have been compensated so far, so we
will call the management in to clarify about it," Kanokwan said.
"The agreement they made with the parents did not specify the
timeframe, so we need to keep pressing on them."
Sixteen teachers and babysitter at the school stand accused of
mistreating children, Nonthaburi provincial police chief Paisarn
Wongwatcharamongkhol said. They were all released on bail on a
8,000 baht bond.
The former director of the school, Warunee Puaktes, was set to come
to hear charges of hiring teachers without a valid license on
Wednesday, Oct. 14, Maj. Gen. Paisarn added. [GN]
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agar Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Agar v.
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC.
On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a
Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI).
On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
against SNI (the Complaint). Agar alleges that SNI improperly
reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation
of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of
action, both of which concern the wage statements.
The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.
SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contended that
certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual
arbitration.
SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in
the case in December 2019, which was not successful.
On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted
was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a
Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the
remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Court overruled the Demurrer
on September 1, 2020. SNI is seeking discretionary appellate review
of this decision.
SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this
issue. SNI intends to continue to vigorously defend its interests,
absent a reasonable resolution.
Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
parties in Kelley v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC; Bryan v.
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC, have begun discovery.
On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint
against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) in Merced County
Superior Court in California.
Ms. Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a
temporary staffing company. Ms. Kelley has brought suit for
purported violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code on her own behalf, and on
behalf of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees of SNI.
Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, failure
to timely pay final wages upon termination, non-compliant wage
statements, and unreimbursed business expenses.
SNI filed a Demurrer on May 21, 2020, seeking dismissal of the
Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it contains only
boilerplate allegations that fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, and it is otherwise uncertain,
ambiguous, and unintelligible.
SNI further sought dismissal of one cause of action based upon the
statute of limitations. SNI simultaneously filed a Motion to Strike
certain allegations in the Complaint as improperly pled. The Court
sustained the Demurrer with leave to amend on August 25, 2020. The
Court also granted the Motion to Strike.
Pending the filing of an amended pleading, the parties have begun
discovery.
On June 15, 2020, the same law firm representing Ms. Kelley also
filed notice with the State of California of the intent to pursue a
claim on a representative basis pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
This notice was served on behalf of Julie Bryan, who worked at SNI
through a temporary staffing agency in early 2020. The notice
states the intent to pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Bryan as well
as other alleged aggrieved employees, identified as all current and
former hourly or non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired
directly or through staffing agencies or labor contractors.
The notice alleges that SNI failed to properly pay Ms. Bryan and
the other alleged aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed
to properly provide or compensate minimum and overtime wages and
for meal and rest breaks, failed to issue compliant wage
statements, and failed to reimburse for all necessary
business-related expenses, in violation of the California Labor
Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. On August
19, 2020, Ms. Bryan filed a Complaint in Merced County Superior
Court asserting the claims set forth in her PAGA notice. SNI has
filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and the parties have
entered the discovery phase of the case.
SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests in both of these
matters, absent a reasonable resolution.
Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
SYMPHONY BRONZEVILLE: Appeals Court Rules in BIPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arevalo, Esq. -- carevalo@salawus.com -- and Molly Arranz,
Esq. -- marranz@salawus.com -- of SmithAmundsen LLC, in an article
for JDSupra, report that even in the pandemic, the (high) number of
class action filings based upon the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act
(BIPA) remains steady. And, against that backdrop come two recent
decisions that may impact how employers need to shift their defense
strategies.
First, in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC, the Illinois
Court of Appeals ruled that the state Workers' Compensation Act
(WCA) and its exclusivity provisions do not bar claims for
statutory damages under BIPA. The court distinguished the two,
noting that while the WCA provides remedies to workers that have
sustained an actual injury, BIPA provides statutory, liquidated
damages to employees who allege privacy right violations even when
there is no injury. This outcome should come as no surprise given
past rulings on what an employee or consumer needs to show to
pursue a BIPA claim. Thus, as it relates to BIPA claims, the WCA
exclusivity defense is no longer viable – or at least for the
time being, since this case will likely be appealed to the Illinois
Supreme Court.
In a second decision, Williams v. Jackson Park SLF, LLC, the
Northern District of Illinois held that union workers under a
collective bargaining agreement are preempted from pursuing a BIPA
cause of action in federal court. The overall success of this
argument, though, may be limited as the court is allowing the
plaintiff to amend its complaint, meaning the case may still be
litigated by non-union class members. It remains to be seen what
defenses to the merits -- and perhaps, more importantly, to class
certification -- can be advanced with an amended complaint and
amended class definition.
On balance: it has been 12 years since BIPA was enacted, but there
are still so many questions that are being battled in court as
employers and employees continue to navigate this biometric privacy
law. One thing is for certain: BIPA packs a punch with eye-popping
statutory damages and monetary awards that can lead to anywhere
from $1,000 to $5,000 per violation plus attorneys' fees. Moreover,
considering that an alleged violation is enough to bring a suit,
BIPA is a class action dream -- bearing in mind if an employer is
collecting biometric data on one individual, it is collecting it on
many individuals.
To avoid finding yourself facing a BIPA class action, the best
thing you can do as an employer is ensure basic compliance in the
first place:
* Determine what biometric information you are collecting. Under
BIPA, biometric data is sensitive information that is biologically
unique -- such as iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and face
geometry. Both of the recent lawsuits were brought by employees
using finger prints or hand prints to clock in and out of work.
While these may now seem like obvious identifiers, remember that
some identifiers can be captured simply through voice or video
recording. That being said, while advanced technology can enhance
the workplace experience, when integrating new systems think
through what information your company may be collecting in order to
determine any necessary disclosures.
* Evaluate what disclosures you currently have in place. To comply
with BIPA, companies must provide written notice to its users
disclaiming what biometric information will be collected, stored,
or used, as well as an explanation of the purpose of its
collection. Additionally, prior to collection it is best to obtain
express written authorization from employees to collect and store
their biometric information.
Create a public facing policy that is easily accessible for
employees. Biometric data has become a hot button issue across the
country. Since biometric information is uniquely sensitive and
cannot be changed, there is constant, growing concern on how
information is being collected, stored, and destroyed. Creating a
company policy that is available to employees is not only required,
but helps ease some concern. Consider posting the policy in public
spaces like breakrooms, or perhaps in areas where the biometric
data is being used. For example, if your employees clock in via
fingerprints, then perhaps it is worth posting a copy of the policy
near the time clock.
* Stay alert to both recent court decisions and pending
regulations. BIPA has caused quite a stir and will continue to be
challenged in courts as employers and employees alike learn what
can and cannot be brought under BIPA. While staying up to date on
recent court decisions is always beneficial, it is also important
to be alert to any regulatory changes so that your business can
remain in compliance. Recently, the National Biometric Information
Act of 2020 was introduced in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this
would be the first comprehensive federal policy of its kind
concerning biometric data. Since this bill has only been introduced
you are not subject to any official requirements as of yet.
However, the more you are aware of upcoming regulations, the better
prepared your company will be with efficiently and effectively
complying. [GN]
TARGET CORP: Vanderhider Files Class Suit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is styled as Donahue Vanderhider and Sam Rivas, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals
vs. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 27-CV-20-14049 (Minn. 4th Judicial
Dist., Hennepin Cty., Oct. 30, 2020).
Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants
through its branded proprietary credit cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Susan Weiner, Esq.
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 605-4098
The Defendant is represented by:
Leah Chalmers Janus, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
Telephone: (612) 492-7000
E-mail: ljanus@fredlaw.com
TERMINIX GLOBAL: Hovell Files PI Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terminix Global
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Hovell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terminix Global
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02804 (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 6, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Terminix Global Holdings, Inc. manufactures pest control products.
The Company offers pests and termites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Tate Spragens, Esq.
SPRAGENS LAW PLC
311 22nd Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 983-8900
Email: john@spragenslaw.com
TRACY VW INC: Brightenstine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tracy VW, Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph Brightenstine, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Tracy VW, Inc. a California
corporation, doing business as Tracy Volkswagen, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0009405 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 6,
2020).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment".
Tracy Volkswagen, Inc. is the home for VW Service, Parts, and
Accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Arbitration Bid in Bickerstaff Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Truist Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company's renewed motion to compel arbitration of the claims of
some of the class members, in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, is
pending.
This class action case was filed in the Fulton County State Court
on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9,
2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received.
On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen
who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who,
from July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one
overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card
transaction (the "Transaction"); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a
result of the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of
those Fees" and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on
appeal.
On April 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion seeking to narrow the
scope of this class and on May 29, 2020, it filed a renewed motion
to compel arbitration of the claims of some of the class members.
Discovery has commenced.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Truist Financial Corporation is a banking organization
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist conducts its
business operations primarily through its bank subsidiary, Truist
Bank, and other nonbank subsidiaries.
UNIFIN INC: Edery Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc. The case
is styled as Armand Edery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-10193 (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Unifin, Inc. is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable
Management firm licensed and bonded nationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
UNITED PARCEL: Hess Sues Over COVID-19 Workplace Safety Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------
DESDNIE HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. RG20078425 (Cal.
Super., Alameda Cty., October 30, 2020) arises from the Defendant's
pattern and practice of maintaining unsafe working conditions that
expose their California employees to a high risk of contracting
COVID-19.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to offer basic
personal protective equipment (PPE) to its employees including the
Plaintiff while forcing them to work in situations which put them
and the public they serve at tremendous risk from COVID-19. The
Defendant failed to implement social distancing protocols in the
workplace, or adopt other programs and procedures necessary to
reduce its employees' risk of contracting the virus as well as
failed to comply with its obligations under the California Labor
Code.
The Defendant allegedly continues to put its employees, customers,
and the public at risk by maintaining policies that prioritize
profit over the safety of its workforce while also engaging in
illegal expense-shifting practices by failing to fully reimburse
the Plaintiff and the members of the Class for necessary
business-related expenses and costs.
United Parcel Service, Inc. delivers packages and documents
throughout the United States and in other countries and
territories. The Company also provides global supply chain services
and less-than-truckload transportation, primarily in the US UPS's
business consists of integrated air and ground pick-up and delivery
network.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, 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
kbates@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
UNITED STATES: U.S. Attorney's Office Prevails in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WWLP.com reports that the U.S. Attorney's Office prevailed in a
habeas class action brought by law firms WilmerHale and Todd & Weld
LLP seeking the release of over 150 detainees awaiting trial on
federal charges, including serious drug and gun crimes, on the
ground that continued detention was unconstitutional because of the
threat to health and safety posed by COVID-19.
"The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on detention
facilities," stated United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling. "Our
law enforcement partners in Plymouth met that challenge by swiftly
instituting measures to ensure the safety of detainees, staff, and
the public. Consequently, they prevailed, despite the plaintiffs'
insistence that the facility was still unsafe. We are pleased the
Court recognized Plymouth's efforts in this case."
"The health and safety of the persons committed to the Department's
care and custody, the staff, and the public is of paramount
importance," Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald, Jr., said.
"It is gratifying to see that the Court has recognized the many
measures the Department has taken to protect people during this
time of unprecedented challenge."
In April 2020, the detainees filed a habeas petition challenging
the conditions at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility
("PCCF"), the state jail where they are held, as inadequate to
address the COVID-19 pandemic. They sought an injunction that would
require the immediate release of some or all of them, as well as
various other forms of relief. In May 2020, U.S. District Court
Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied their request for an injunction based
on the many measures and policies in place at PCCF to protect
detainees and staff, but stopped short of dismissing the case at
that time. In September 2020, the Court found that the detainees
could not establish an entitlement to habeas relief, and that it
would deny the habeas petition unless they presented additional
evidence by October 8, 2020. Instead, the detainees voluntarily
dismissed the case.
U.S. Attorney Lelling and Sheriff McDonald made the announcement on
Oct. 12. The case was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason C.
Weida and Rachel Goldstein of Lelling's Civil Division, with
assistance from Lisa Olson of the Justice Department's Civil
Division. [GN]
VASTA PLATFORM: Glancy Prongay Commenced Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a national investor rights law firm,
announces it has commenced an investigation on behalf of Vasta
Platform, Ltd. ("Vasta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VSTA) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Vasta investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/vasta-platform-ltd/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In July 2020, Vasta conducted its initial public offering ("IPO"),
selling more than 18.5 million Class A common shares at $19.00 per
share.
Then, on August 20, 2020, the Company announced its financial
results for the second quarter and first half of 2020. Vasta
announced a net loss of 54.9 million reais and revenue of 120.23
million reais, representing a revenue decline of 12.9% from the
prior year period. Vasta also disclosed that "[t]he different
seasonality in revenue recognition seen in 2020 on account of a
greater concentration of invoices at the start of the commercial
cycle (4Q and 1Q) ended up having a negative impact on the basis of
comparison against the same period last year." The Company further
stated that EBITDA was impacted by "the extraordinary effects seen
in the period, such as the different seasonality of revenue
together with the impact of Covid-19 on the operation, as well as
the inventory adjustment and higher marketing expenses."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.63, or nearly 9%,
to close at $16.88 per share on August 21, 2020, representing an
11.16% decline from the IPO price.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Vasta should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. [GN]
WGAMES INC: Faces Halawani Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHLOMY HALAWANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WGAMES, INC., Case No. CACE-20-018821 (Fla. Cir. 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., November 11, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The complaint contends that the Defendant sent unsolicited text
message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about
November 8, 2020 using an automated telephone dialing system to
promote its mobile gaming application, without obtaining prior
express written consent.
As a result, the Defendant violated the TCPA by using such
messaging platform to make non-emergency telephone solicitation
calls to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and/or the other members
of the No Consent Class.
WGames, Inc. is a social and casual games company with primary
place of business and headquarters in Toronto, Ontario.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Offutt Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Zillow Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE ZILLOW GROUP, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 12,
2020, 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.
The appellate case is captioned as Jo Ann Offutt, et al v. Zillow
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80155, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents JO ANN OFFUTT, RAYMOND HARRISPL, and JOHANNA
CHOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Colin M. George, Esq.
GRANITE SPIRE LAW GROUP, PLLC
2003 Western Avenue, Suite 345
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (855) 579-9665
E-mail: cgeorge@hallgeorge.com
- and -
Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016-1101
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Defendants-Petitioners ZILLOW GROUP, INC., SPENCER M. RASCOFF, and
KATHLEEN PHILLIPS are represented by:
Sean C. Knowles, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 359-6224
E-mail: SKnowles@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Michael Evan Rayfield, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2560
E-mail: mrayfield@mayerbrown.com
[*] William J. Anthony Joins Blank Rome's NY Office as Partner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blank Rome LLP disclosed that William J. Anthony has joined the
Firm's New York office as a partner in the Labor & Employment and
Class Action Defense groups. Will joins Blank Rome from Jackson
Lewis P.C. where he served in several high-level leadership roles,
including firm co-chair (2019‒2020), board member (2005‒2020),
and the Hartford office managing principal (2000‒2008). In
addition, Will launched and led the firm's Class Actions and
Complex Litigation group and grew it into one of the largest U.S.
class action practices. Will also established and led Jackson
Lewis' seminal diversity committee, coordinating strategic
initiatives and advancing the firm's diversity and inclusion
efforts, particularly through recruiting.
"We are excited to welcome Will to our Firm," said Grant S. Palmer,
Blank Rome's Managing Partner and CEO. "Will brings senior-level
executive leadership experience, as well as a proven track record
in the courtroom, and his significant labor and employment and
class action defense experience will further bolster our national
teams and be of tremendous value to our clients."
Mr. Anthony focuses his labor and employment practice on the
strategic defense of class, collective, and multi-party actions,
including a broad spectrum of federal and state law wage and hour
claims. He has successfully defended against a wide range of wage
and hour claims, claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and
discrimination statutes. In addition, Will represents organizations
in single-plaintiff cases alleging discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination, and breach of contract.
He has litigated cases in over fifteen states and has trial
experience in Connecticut, New Jersey, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and
Montana. His trial experience includes defense of class,
collective, and single plaintiff actions before juries, judges, and
arbitrators. Will has extensive experience advising clients on the
full range of employment law issues and provides training on
management skills, discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour
laws. He is a frequent speaker on employment law topics in front of
a broad range of live and remote audiences.
"Will has a tremendous reputation—he is a true collaborator,
cultivating strong relationships with clients and colleagues alike,
and delivers favorable case results and advantageous settlements as
a result," said Brooke T. Iley, Partner and Co-Chair of the Labor &
Employment group. "We are thrilled to add his innovative thinking
and client-centric approach to our Labor and Employment group and
the Firm at large. Additionally, Will's commitment to promoting and
advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion aligns with our efforts
at Blank Rome and we look forward to working with him on our shared
goals in this regard."
"The U.S. workforce is living through a time of crisis and
uncertainty due to the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic,"
added Jason E. Reisman, Partner and Co-Chair of the Labor &
Employment group. "We will undoubtedly see a spike in litigation as
a result of the challenges that 2020 has presented for employers,
and we look forward to drawing on Will's impressive litigation
talent and experience, as well as his ability to inspire and drive
teams, to help deliver positive outcomes for our clients."
"I am thrilled to be joining Blank Rome," said Mr. Anthony. "Blank
Rome is a perfect fit for me, my clients, and my practice. There
are several areas of practice at the Firm that create opportunities
to support clients beyond labor and employment matters, including
corporate, tax, finance, and real estate, among others. Blank Rome
also has a very clear and prominent culture of collegiality and
collaboration as well as a leading reputation for its diversity and
inclusion initiatives. Additionally, I was extremely impressed with
the Firm's dedicated and strategic approach to lateral integration
and, as a result, look forward to continuing to expand my practice
and collaborating with other attorneys and groups across the
Firm."
Mr. Anthony earned his J.D. from Boston University, and his B.A.
from Hamilton College. He served as past president of the
Connecticut Lawyers Collaborate for Diversity and received the
Hartford Business Journal's 2010 Leadership in Diversity Award.
About Blank Rome
Blank Rome -- http://www.blankrome.com--is an Am Law 100 firm with
14 offices and more than 600 attorneys and principals who provide
comprehensive legal and advocacy services to clients operating in
the United States and around the world.
*********
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 ***