/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201123.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 23, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 234
Headlines
2JR PIZZA: Brown Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Travel Expenses
AANGAN OF INDIA: Maldonado Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
ALDI INC: James Sues Over Collection of Sales Tax on Face Masks
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Ciccarello Suit Over Drop of Share Price
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: County Jail Faces Class Action
AM DIRECTIONS: Faces TCPA Class Action for Mass Texting Voters
AMAZON INC: Smalls Balks at Minority Workers' COVID Safety Response
AMAZON.COM: Clayborn Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN ZURICH: KBH Sports Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Settlement Hearing Set for November 24
AUDIBLE INC: Licea Suit Alleges Automatic Subscription Renewal
AUSTRALIA: Class Suit Seeks Injunction to Stop Coal Mine Approval
AVANTI PALLET: Humberto FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BAE SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cordova Suit Says
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit Ongoing in Delaware
BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber Suit Seeks to Certify Salespersons Class
BOOKIT OPERATING: Cooper Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
CANADA: Grand Forks Residents Launch Class Action Over Flooding
CAROUSEL CHECKS: Paguada Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
CARRIER ONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Niiranen Says
CARVANA MOTOR: Meachum Employment Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Issue on Attorneys' Fee in Hayes Resolved
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Lead Plaintiff Bids in IPO Litigation Pending
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Constangy Brooks Atty. Discusses Ruling in Scott
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Burning Bros. Seeks Payment for COVID Losses
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Karns Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
E.W. RESHARD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Landscapers, Scott Says
ENTERPRISE CRUDE: McClintock Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
FCI LENDER: Settlement in Diaz FDCPA Suit Gets Final Approval
FONDS D'AIDE: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Attar
FTE NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Michigan Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Camaro Defects
GETWELLNETWORK INC: Richey Labor Class Suit Goes to S.D. California
GKN DRIVELINE: Class of Employees Certified in Mebane FLSA Suit
GOOD SAMARITAN: COVID-19 Patients, Families File Class-Action
GOOGLE LLC: Uses Cellular Data for Digital Ads, Taylor Suit Says
INTERFACE INC: Faces Swanson Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
IRAN: Canada Delivers Class Actions Over Flight PS752 Shoot-Down
JANON ELECTRIC: Pavon FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
JAY'S JUNK: Faces Brooks Suit Over Unpaid OT for Drivers, Haulers
JUST ENERGY: Asks 6th Cir. to Reconsider FLSA Class Action Ruling
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windshields
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Motion for Class Certification Stricken
LITTLE CAESAR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Lenoir's BIPA Suit
LYNEER STAFFING: Protective Order Entered in Trejo Labor Suit
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Stay McCurdy Putative Class Suit Denied
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
MELBOURNE: Andrews Government Faces Class Actions Over Lockdowns
NEW MOOSEJAW: Revitch Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass
NORTHPORT-EAST NORTHPORT SCHOOL: District Sued for Negligence
NOVA MUD: Misclassifies Mud Engineers, Oldham Suit Claims
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Civil Procedure Professor Discusses Court Ruling
ONDECK CAPITAL: Board Faces Lawsuit Over Fire Sale to Enova
PRESCOTT MOORE: Schmid Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
PROASSURANCE CORP: Continues to Defend Alabama Class Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Clemmons Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES: Simon Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
SQUARE A Construction: Giron Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliation
STARBUCKS: Again Seeks Win in Slave Labor Class Suit in L.A. Court
STEAK N SHAKE: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Berry Suit Claims
TIKTOK INC: Wiliams BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TILE SHOP: January 8, 2021 Claims Filing Deadline Set
UBER: 9th Cir. Upholds Lower Ct. Ruling in Data Breach Class Action
UBER: Offer Drivers New Contract w/ Clause Preventing Class Actions
VALRHONA INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Claims
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
WEST AUSTRALIAN GOV'T: Shine Attys. File Indigenous Workers Suit
WHITE CASTLE: Loses Judgment on Pleadings in Cothron BIPA Suit
WOLVERINE WORLD: Consolidated Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing
WORLD WIDE CONSULTING: Final Class Action Certification Sought
ZOOM: Faces Multidistrict Litigation Over Privacy Issue
*********
2JR PIZZA: Brown Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Travel Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL BROWN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. 2JR PIZZA ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a PIZZA HUT,
and JEFFREY T. REETZ, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00762-CHB (W.D.
Ky., November 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky
Revised Statutes by failing to reasonably reimburse the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated delivery drivers their automobile
expenses, resulting to the decrease of their minimum wages.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since May 20,
2015 and is currently working as a delivery driver at the
Defendants' Pizza Hut's stores located in Louisville, Kentucky.
2JR Pizza Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Pizza Hut, is an operator of
Pizza franchise stores, with its principal place of business
located in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Telephone: (502) 636-4333
E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com
- and –
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: joeyl@bsjifrm.com
AANGAN OF INDIA: Maldonado Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL MALDONADO ROSETE, ELIGIO CANDIDO, CARLOS SALDANA VILLANUEVA,
and VENANCIO SALDANA VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v, AANGAN OF INDIA LLC (D/B/A AANGAN),
ROYAL KABAB AND CURRY, INC. (D/B/A AANGAN), RYM FOODS LLC (D/B/A
AANGAN), AARON 31 LLC (D/B/A AANGAN), NITU SINGH, DOLLY SINGH,
ASHISH BAWA, and DICOSTA DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-09598 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 16, 2020) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, dishwasher, porter
and food preparer at the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian restaurant,
located at 2701 Broadway, New York under the name "Aangan."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ALDI INC: James Sues Over Collection of Sales Tax on Face Masks
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA JAMES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI, INC., DOLLAR GENERAL, eBAY and KEVIN
ACCESSORIES ONLINE, Defendants, Case No. GD-20-011704 (Pa. Comm.
Pleas, Allegheny Cty., November 12, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act and for civil conspiracy to commit conversion,
unjust enrichment, and misappropriation or conversion.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful collection of sales
tax on clothing and accessories and medical supplies such as face
masks in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants, as
licensed retailers, knew or should have known that these products
are nontaxable during state of emergency.
As a result of the Defendants' unfair and deceptive practices,
Defendants were enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff and the
Class members through the payment of fees in the form of a sales
tax that never should have been charged for the sale of nontaxable
goods.
Aldi, Inc. is a company that owns and operates grocery stores, with
a principal place of business located at 1200 North Kirk Road,
Batavia, Illinois.
Dollar General is an American chain of variety stores, with a
principal place of business located at 100 Mission Ridge,
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.
eBay is an American multinational e-commerce corporation, with a
principal place of business located at 2025 Hamilton Avenue, San
Jose, California.
Kevin Accessories Online is an accessories store, with a principal
place of business located at 2025 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
Kyle H. Steenland, Esq.
J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
The Rubicon Building
201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Ciccarello Suit Over Drop of Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA CICCARELLO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, DANIEL ZHANG,
and MAGGIE WU, Case No. 1:20-cv-09568 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Alibaba securities between October 21, 2020 and
November 3, 2020, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial
Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology
company that is best known for operates Alipay, one of the largest
mobile and online payments platforms.
On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced that it had begun the process
of a concurrent initial public offering ("IPO") on the Shanghai and
Hong Kong stock exchanges. On October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced
its IPO and was set to raise $34.5 billion, making it the largest
public offering in history.
On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive
chairman Eric Jing, Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The article
stated that, though regulators did not provide details, "the
Chinese word used to describe the interview -- yuetan -- generally
indicates a dressing down by authorities." The article also
included a statement from Ant Group that it will "implement the
meeting opinions in depth."
On November 3, 2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may
not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements due to
material matters" related to the meeting with regulators the
previous day and "the recent changes in the Fintech regulatory
environment."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $25.27, or 8%, to
close at $285.57 per share on November 3, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications or
disclosure requirements for certain material matters.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Plaintiff Laura Ciccarello, purchased Alibaba securities during the
Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged
federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited, also known as Alibaba Group and as
Alibaba.com, is a Chinese multinational technology company
specializing in e-commerce, retail, Internet, and technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: County Jail Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
CBS-Pittsburgh reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against the Allegheny County Jail over treatment of inmates with
psychiatric disabilities. [GN]
AM DIRECTIONS: Faces TCPA Class Action for Mass Texting Voters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that the TCPA has
a major impact on the political season.
But it is not just campaigns that are being impacted by the TCPA's
broad restrictions on consumer outreach -- political pollsters are
also being hamstrung by the TCPA and, at times, sued in massive
class actions.
In Drew v. Am. Directions Research, Grp., Case No. 20-cv-00402,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191780 (N.D. Ill. October 16, 2020) a company
conducting a voter "survey" is caught in a TCPA class action
alleging they sent autodialed (robo) texts without the express
consent of the called party.
The texts at issue read:
MICHAEL, We're texting voters about local issues and your opinion
matters. Please click to participate: [website address].
Although the Complaint does not specify the purpose of the texts,
the company's website references COVID attitude surveys so it is
plausible the texts were sent in an effort to solicit information
on voter attitudes on this subject. The website reads: "How exactly
is the novel COVID-19 outbreak impacting consumer attitudes and
behaviors? We are collecting responses from 200 US residents each
day to help you navigate the ever-evolving marketplace, and making
the data publicly available in a near real-time dashboard. Click
the button below to access, interact with, and trend results."
In Drew, the Court focused on the highly impersonal nature of the
text at issue. The fact that the text vaguely referenced soliciting
"voters" to participate in a "survey" highly suggested the use of
mass text blasting. Moreover the fact that Plaintiff alleged
Defendant bought lists of consumer information -- including phone
numbers and first names -- accounted for the "Michael" appearing in
all caps in the obviously templatized text message.
Importantly, the Drew court is within the Seventh Circuit, which
means the rule of Gadelhak applies. That means the TCPA will only
prevents texts if they are sent from a system that calls randomly
or sequentially. Given the highly generic nature of the messages in
Drew, however, the Court had little trouble finding that the
messages may have been mass blasted to concocted numbers. (Notably
this is at odds with the specific allegations that the numbers were
obtained from a purchased "list" and not generated by the dialer --
so I definitely see where Defendant was coming from with their
motion to dismiss.)
In the end Drew shows that the TCPA remains highly problematic for
pollsters, surveyers, and-of course-political campaigns. The TCPA
contains no exceptions for calls made for political or
information-gathering purposes. If you use technology regulated by
the TCPA you MUST have the express consent of the called party to
call or text a cell phone—period. And even in jurisdictions where
the TCPA is narrowly interpreted, the use of highly templatized or
generic messages might land you in hot water -- even if your
technology ultimately does not meet the statute's definition.
And, of course, the Supreme Court is set to decide -- once and for
all -- what technology the statute applies to this term. The
Plaintiff's lawyers just filed their hard-hitting brief and we
should know a lot more come oral argument on December 8, 2020.
[GN]
AMAZON INC: Smalls Balks at Minority Workers' COVID Safety Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SMALLS, on his own behalf and on behalf of class of
similarly situated African American and Latina/o workers, v.
AMAZON, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05492 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020),
alleges that the defendant violated certain rights guaranteed to
the Plaintiff and the class he represents by virtue of state and
local civil rights laws and that these violations arose from the
same nucleus of operative facts as its violations of New York Human
Rights Law.
On March 30, 2020, Smalls organized a public demonstration in the
parking lot of the fulfillment center which drew the attendance of
approximately 60 workers and demanded that Amazon close down the
building until it could be deeply cleaned and sanitized. Smalls
noted that Amazon was endangering its workers and that the cleaning
company with which it then contracted was short-staffed and giving
short shrift to the cleaning process.
During this rally, Smalls opposed practices which discriminated
against minority workers and immigrants by subjecting them to
inferior terms and conditions of employment due to their
race/ethnicity. Within two hours of the public demonstration,
Amazon terminated Smalls, claiming that he was violating its
quarantine order and thereby jeopardizing the health and safety of
other employees.
An Amazon spokesperson, Kristin Kish, claimed that company managers
had repeatedly warned Smalls not to come to work and to maintain
social distancing at the workplace and asserted that he violated
both edicts.
On November 19, 2015, Smalls commenced working for Amazon in an
entry level position. In August 2016, he was promoted to a
management associate position. As such, he was responsible for
approximately 60 subordinates. On March 24, 2020, a worker, Barbara
Chandler, with whom Smalls had had close contact, tested positive
for COVID 19.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tricia (CK) Hoffler, Esq.
THE CK HOFFLER FIRM
23 Lenox Pointe, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30324
- and -
Mic H. Sussman, Esq.
SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES
PO Box 1005
Goshen, NY 10924
Telephone: (845)-294-3991
AMAZON.COM: Clayborn Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TERRANCE CLAYBORN, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. RIC2003845 (Filed September 29, 2020), was removed from the
California Superior Court for the County of Riverside to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Nov. 13, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02368 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and other putative class members who
were entitled to "meal period premium wages" and ended their
employment with Amazon during the three-year period prior to filing
this complaint -- September 29, 2017 to September 29, 2020 -- are
entitled to "waiting time penalties" under California Labor Code
section 203.
Amazon Services LLC offers many of the Web service platforms that
are Amazon offers.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
lblas@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3800
Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
E-mail: mcooney@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN ZURICH: KBH Sports Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
KBH SPORTS CLUB LLC. and DAVID CHUNG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE CO.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05555-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) arises
from the Defendant's denial of coverage for losses caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic.
In compliance with the Business Closure Order due to the pandemic,
the Plaintiffs temporarily suspended the business on or about March
16, 2020. Prior to the pandemic, the Plaintiffs purchased an
all-risk commercial insurance policy from the Defendant to protect
from unexpected events. The Plaintiffs made claims for coverage
under the insurance policy expecting the Defendant to indemnify and
compensate for the recent losses incurred.
The Plaintiffs contend that in a swift reaction, the Defendant
denied and refused to indemnify their losses. The claim denial took
less time than a "knee jerk" reaction since the denial letters
were, probably, a standard form which were pre-written even prior
to submission of the claims. They also assert that the Defendant
summarily, uniformly and consistently, rejected all claims
across-the-board on substantively same or similar insurance
policies held by them and the proposed members of the class.
These rejections were unjustified, unreasonable and without basis.
The Plaintiffs further seek remedy for the Defendant's unfair
business practice of unjustly profiting and retaining excessive
premiums.
The claims denial based on "virus exclusion" is erroneously
applied. The actual cause of Plaintiffs' Covered Loss was the
COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting Business Closure. The
Defendant denied coverage for the Covered Loss, asserting the
following: virus exclusion; that Plaintiffs had not "sustained a
physical loss or damage to the property"; and that the civil
authority did not prohibit access to the property, the suit says.
KBH Sports Club LLC. is wholly owned by Plaintiff David Chung.
Plaintiff Chung is a citizen of the State of New York and resides
in Staten Island New York, Richmond County.
Defendant American Zurich Insurance Company is a corporation
organized under the laws of Illinois with corporate address of 1299
Zurich Way, Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Chung, Esq.
43-22 216th Street
Bayside, NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
Facsimile: (929) 381-1019
E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Settlement Hearing Set for November 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a hearing
at which the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement
in the class action suit related to the company's 40G solutions,
has been set for November 24, 2020.
On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.
The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we see softer than
expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of our large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand we expect in 100G."
A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.
On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which
was denied on March 28, 2019.
On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case. The court granted the motion on May 16,
2019.
The substantive allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative second
amended consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On
May 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case
as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and
Levi & Korsinsky as class counsel.
On July 12, 2019, the Company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed their Reply Brief.
On November 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be granted, to which Defendants filed written
objections on November 27, 2019. On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to Defendants' objections, and on
December 16, 2019, Defendants filed their reply brief.
The court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's
Memorandum and Recommendation over Defendants' objections on
December 20, 2019. Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, Defendants filed
a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to Defendants' petition on
January 13, 2020, and Defendants filed a reply brief in further
support of the petition for permission to appeal on January 21,
2020.
On January 23, 2020, Defendants filed an unopposed motion in the
Fifth Circuit requesting that the court stay further proceedings
for 90 days to allow the parties to conduct settlement
negotiations. The Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the
motion on January 24, 2020.
On April 7, 2020, by joint motion of the parties, the Fifth Circuit
extended the order for another 40 days, up to and including June 2,
2020.
On June 2, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter pursuant to a mediator's recommendation. On June
4, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and
Notice of Settlement with the Court, in order to allow the parties
to finalize their settlement and file a motion for preliminary
approval with the court no later than August 3, 2020.
On August 3, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
with the Court. The Stipulation of Settlement contemplates—among
other things and contingent upon Court approval of the settlement
and customary terms and conditions—settlement of the action, a
release of all claims made in the action, and dismissal of the
claims made in the action with prejudice.
As consideration for entering into the settlement, Plaintiffs will
receive for distribution to the members of the class they purport
to represent (in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement) a payment of $15.5 million funded by the Company's
applicable directors' and officers' insurance policies.
On October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed motions with the Court
seeking final approval of the class action settlement and an award
of attorneys' fees to be paid out of the $15.5 million settlement
fund. A hearing at which the Court will consider whether to approve
the settlement has been set for November 24, 2020.
Applied Optoelectronics said, "Additional information regarding the
settlement can be obtained by reviewing the settlement documents
publicly filed with the Court in the matter. After taking into
account all currently available information, the advice of our
counsel, and the extent and currently-expected availability of our
existing insurance coverage, we believe that the eventual outcome
of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our
overall financial condition, results of operations or cash flows,
and we have not recorded any accrual with regard to this matter."
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.
AUDIBLE INC: Licea Suit Alleges Automatic Subscription Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUDIBLE, INC. and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02360 (C.D. Cal., November 12, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California's Automatic Renewal Law and the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants offered free trial
online audiobook service/subscription and related products that
violated California law. Specifically, the Defendants: (a) fail to
present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service
offer terms, including its full cancellation policy, in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement was fulfilled; (b) charge consumer credit or debit cards
without first obtaining affirmative consent to automatically
renewing charges; and (c) fail to provide an acknowledgment that
includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms,
cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a
manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer.
As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to
the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded.
Audible, Inc. is an online audiobook and podcast platform owned by
Amazon.com Inc., with its principal place of business located in
Newark, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
AUSTRALIA: Class Suit Seeks Injunction to Stop Coal Mine Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Slezak and Penny Timms, writing for The New Daily, report
that a class action launched on behalf of young people everywhere
seeks an injunction to stop the Australian government from
approving an extension to Whitehaven's Vickery coal mine, arguing
it will harm young people by exacerbating climate change.
The injunction, filed in the Federal Court, is a first for
Australia.
An expert says it could break new legal ground with widespread
ramifications, causing problems for any new coal mine in Australia
-- and possibly any fossil fuel project -- if it is successful.
Though the injunction itself is unique, it is part of a growing
wave of climate litigation in Australia and comes less than two
months after 23-year-old Melbourne law student Katta O'Donnell
filed a class action against the Australian government for failing
to disclose the risk climate change poses to Australians' super and
other low risk investments.
Izzy Raj-Seppings, 13, is one of the representative plaintiffs in
this new case, and filed the injunction along with seven other
young people aged from 13 to 17 -- many of whom met during School
Strike 4 Climate and were looking for more ways to take action.
The Sydney high school student made headlines last year when police
ordered her to move on after organising a School Strike 4 Climate
protest outside the Prime Minister's Kirribilli residence.
She said climate change worried her, but taking part in action such
as the lawsuit gave her hope.
"We're trying to get the federal Environment Minister to prevent
the Vickery coal mine going ahead because we believe she has a duty
of care for young Australians and young people all over the world,"
Ms Raj-Seppings said.
"I definitely have hope because if you look around, you can see all
the incredible climate activists, young and old, all these people
fighting for what's right.
"And we are making change."
First of its kind
Rather than making the claim under environmental law, the class
action claims the federal minister, Sussan Ley, has a common law
duty of care for young people and cannot approve actions that will
make climate change worse.
The class action argues that by digging up and burning coal,
climate change will be made worse and that will harm them in the
future.
David Barnden from Equity Generation Lawyers, who is representing
the students, said the impacts of climate change on youth go "over
and above regular people" because of their age.
"The law operates to protect vulnerable people by saying that
people in power have a duty to protect them," Mr Barnden said.
"In this particular case, we say that the Environment Minister has
a duty to protect vulnerable people.
"What this case does is say that 'the coal needs to stay in the
ground and it can't be burnt'.
"And the minister has the obligation to protect younger people and
not approve the mine."
Mr Barnden is a specialist in climate litigation and is also
representing Ms O'Donnell in her action against the Federal
Government as well as 26 year-old Mark McVeigh, who revealed in
January he is suing super fund REST for not doing enough on climate
change.
This new case is a class action, with the eight young people
claiming to represent every person in the world under the age of
18.
Class actions allow a group of people to bring a legal action on
behalf of a larger group who are affected in a similar way.
Mr Barnden argues a precedent for this case was set in 2016 when an
injunction stopped the then minister for immigration from moving a
refugee to anywhere besides Australia, because he had a duty of
care for her.
Emrys Nekvapil, one of the barristers who won that case, is also
representing the students.
'Huge ramifications' for coal
The mine at the centre of the case is Whitehaven's proposed
extension to the Vickery Coal Mine north of Gunnedah in NSW.
Whitehaven's application to build the extension is now before
Environment Minister Sussan Ley, who must decide whether to approve
it or not.
The case asks for an injunction on the Minister's decision.
If it proceeds, additional coal from the mine extension will create
roughly 100 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gasses,
according to the NSW Independent Planning Commission — or about
as much as is created each year in Australia by all forms of
domestic transport combined.
Whitehaven did not respond to a request for comment.
A spokesperson for Environment Minister Sussan Ley confirmed they
received the injunction application, but could not comment as the
matter was before the courts.
The young people and lawyers behind the injunction application said
it was about much more than one coal mine.
"If we win and if we can injunct the minister from making a
decision to approve it, it could have huge ramifications for other
new coal mines in Australia," Mr Barnden said.
"And it might mean the end of any new coal mine in Australia.
"We're playing to win."
Barrister and legal academic Chris McGrath said the case would be
difficult.
"That's the nature of big litigation like this," Dr McGrath said.
"You're breaking new ground – they're hard by nature.
"You can see a whole heap of obstacles and things that will be
thrown up by the government to try and hinder the case going
forward and block it."
Dr McGrath said even they did win, the impact was unclear.
He said it would be a thorn in the side of fossil fuel projects in
the future, but governments would likely still be able to find ways
of approving coal mines.
But according to Izzy Raj-Seppings, allowing coal mines to go ahead
-- no matter where the coal was burned -- is harming her future.
"It will create more climate refugees and we'll have a lasting
health impact on all of us," she said. [GN]
AVANTI PALLET: Humberto FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JORGE HUMBERTO and CASTILLO MALDONADO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVANTI PALLET,
LLC and JOSEPH ESPOSITO, Case No. 2020-020200-CA-01, was removed
from the Florida Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on November 12, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-24650 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of overtime
and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida law.
Avanti Pallet, LLC is a carrier truck company located in Opa-locka,
Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony V. Falzon, Esq.
ANTHONY V. FALZON P.A.
12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 100
Miami, FL 33181
Telephone: (786) 703-4181
Facsimile: (786) 703-2961
E-mail: tony@anthonyfalzon-law.com
assistant@anthonyfalzon-law.com
BAE SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cordova Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
AIMEE CORDOVA, Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the
Public Similarly Situated v. BAE SYSTEMS, INC., BAE SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS & SERVICES, INC. AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
Case No. 37-2020-00041326-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super, San Diego Cty.,
Nov. 12, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide meal
periods, failed to provide rest periods, and failed to pay overtime
wages in violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that she and Class members consistently
worked in excess of eight hours in a day, 12 hours in a day, 40
hours in a week, and on a seventh consecutive day - and were not
paid overtime or double-time compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a forensic analyst
in California from March 2011 through the present.
BAE Systems is a British multinational defence, security, and
aerospace company. Its headquarters are in London and Farnborough
in the United Kingdom with operations worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Dente, Esq.
DENTE LAW, P.C.
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 550-3475
Facsimile: (619) 342-9668
E-mail: matt@dentelaw.com
- and -
London D. Meservy, Esq.
MESERVY LAW, P.C.
401 West A Street, Suite 1712
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 779-1276
Facsimile: (866) 231-8132
E-mail: london@meservylawpc.com
- and -
Rory K. Pendergast, Esq.
THE PENDERGAST LAW FIRM, PC
3019 Polk Avenue
San Diego, CA 92104
Telephone: (619) 344-8699
Facsimile: (619) 344-8701
E-mail: rory@rorylaw.com
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit Ongoing in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action
suit entitled, Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).
On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).
The Complaint alleges that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserts claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment.
The Complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments
were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments,
including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected
at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms.
The Complaint also seeks costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.
On July 1, 2020, the Company filed its response to the Complaint
and denied the claims asserted therein.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber Suit Seeks to Certify Salespersons Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON HUBER AND JUSTIN
THERIOT, Individually and on behalf of the Class v. BIOSCRIP
INFUSION SERVICES AND OPTION CARE HEALTH, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02197-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order certifying a class of:
"all commissioned salespersons for the Defendants during
Quarter 3 of 2019."
The Defendants represented that the salespersons would be paid
quarterly commissions calculated based on hitting specific sales
goals as outlined in their 2019 Sales Compensation Plan. On or
about November 8, 2019, the Defendants informed their salespersons
of their commission amounts. These amounts fell significantly short
of what they should have been under that Sales Compensation Plan.
The Defendants failed to remit the commissions that were earned as
agreed in Quarter 3 of 2019 in the amounts outlined in the Sales
Compensation Plan. All salespersons are owed commissions calculated
based on that Plan, says the complaint.
Option Care Health, Inc. is "the nation's largest independent
provider of home and alternate site infusion services" with "over
5,000 teammates, including approximately 2,900 clinicians."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
4, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38S8Jzz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Butler, Esq.
Jacqueline C. Barber, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BUTLER, LLC
3939 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 301
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 285-5440
Facsimile: (504) 407-2101
E-mail: johnclaytonbulter@gmail.com
BOOKIT OPERATING: Cooper Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYCE COOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOOKIT OPERATING LLC d/b/a bookit.com,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00304-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., November 12,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing
to provide the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers
at least 60 days advance notice of their termination.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Bay County, Florida until
his termination in the week of March 17, 2020.
Bookit Operating LLC, d/b/a bookit.com, is an online travel company
based in Panama City Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
CANADA: Grand Forks Residents Launch Class Action Over Flooding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Popyk, writing for CBC News, reports that Grand Forks residents
have launched a proposed class action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court
alleging provincial government forestry mismanagement and negligent
logging caused devastating flooding in 2018.
In a notice of civil claim, they claim the ministry overestimated
the amount of timber that could be sustainably clearcut by 20 per
cent over a period of up to 20 years.
Without sufficient timber regrowth and watershed recovery, the
lawsuit claims the result was increased surface runoff and stream
flows that caused the major flooding events in the Kettle and
Granby river systems in 2018.
"I've been flooded three out of the four years I've been here,"
said Jennifer Houghton, a Grand Forks resident. "It's been a
traumatizing experience, the uncertainty of not knowing if you're
going to flood again."
Houghton is one of three named representative plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit.
The defendants include B.C.'s Ministry of Forests, Lands and
Natural Resources Operations, forestry companies Interfor,
Weyerhaeuser, Tolko Industries, pulp company Mercer Celgar and
three First Nations owned companies.
"There was no way the amount of forests that's being taken out of
our watershed cannot be connected to the amount of flooding we've
been getting," Houghton told CBC News.
Lawsuit accuses province, forestry companies of negligence
The residents' statement of claim accuses the province and the
logging companies of creating conditions that led to flooding and
argue they are responsible for the substantial damages caused by
the 2018 disaster.
"The severity of this event has been the result of forestry
harvesting and watershed resource mismanagement that has
significantly increased levels of sedimentation, sediment
transport, water quantity, the timing of flow and the runoff into
the Granby and Kettle rivers during peak melt seasons, the claim
alleges.
None of the allegations have been tested in court and a response to
the lawsuit has yet to be filed. The B.C. Forests Ministry refused
comment, saying the matter is before the court. The case has yet to
be certified as a class action and hearings are unlikely to begin
before 2021.
The residents are asking the court to include all people living
within 15 kilometres of Grand Forks whose homes, businesses, health
or livelihood was affected as a result of the flooding.
Their lawyer Peter Waldmann says it could be years before the civil
suit is heard in court.
Homes to be destroyed by city and returned to flood plain
Jennifer Houghton says she isn't waiting for the lawsuit.
"I'm going to be moving, so I won't have to deal with flooding
again."
Her home has been bought out by the City of Grand Forks as part of
a flood mitigation program.
Sixty-two homes in the North Ruckle neighbourhood and 16 from South
Ruckle, two areas hardest hit by the floods in 2018, are being
purchased and destroyed.
The city says the area will be returned to a flood plain.
A $50 million recovery plan, announced by federal, provincial and
city officials, will also be used to reinforce 1,300 metres of a
river bank and build dykes to prevent future flooding. [GN]
CAROUSEL CHECKS: Paguada Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAROUSEL CHECKS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09530-LTS (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.carouselchecks.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent,
which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a
description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper
label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title
elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the its Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Carousel Checks Inc. is a banking check manufacturing company,
headquartered in Palos Hills, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CARRIER ONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Niiranen Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFF NIIRANEN and ROBERT TREADWAY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CARRIER ONE, INC. And IVAN
SAMAROV, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-06781 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 16,
2020), challenges the unlawful practices of the Defendants
including:
-- misclassifying Carrier One drivers as independent
contractors when they are, in fact, employees;
-- failing to pay all wages owed to Carrier One drivers;
-- taking unlawful and excessive deductions from Carrier One
drivers’ wages; and
-- failing to reimburse drivers for expenses.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class of similarly situated
over-the-road drivers allege that the Defendants' unlawful
practices deprived them of wages owed to them in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff Cliff Niiranen is a former driver for Carrier One and
Plaintiff Robert Treadway is a current driver for Carrier One.
Carrier One is a flatbed transportation services company located in
the Chicago metropolitan area that transports steel, building
materials, heavy equipment, and other freight over the road for its
customers. Defendant Ivan Samarov is the president of Carrier
One.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
150 North Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 878-3210
Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
E-mail: msiegel@msiegellaw.com
banewith@msiegellaw.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
CARVANA MOTOR: Meachum Employment Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD MEACHUM v. CARVANA
MOTOR CORPORATION; CARVANA LLC and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No.
BUR-L-1912-20, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court for
the County of Burlington to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on Nov. 13, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-16057 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges interference with his rights under the Family
Medical Leave Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims he faced
adverse employment action because he took medical leave protected
under the FMLA.
Plaintiff Edward Meachum is a resident of the State of New Jersey
and a former employee of the defendants.
Carvana Motor Corp. is New Jersey corporation located at 101
Industrial Avenue, Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, and the former
employer of the Plaintiff.
Carvana LLC is a limited liability company conducting business at
600 Creek Road, Delanco, New Jersey, and the former employer of the
plaintiff.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard J. Cino, Esq.
Nicholas A. Plinio, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Connell Drive, Suite 2000
Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
Telephone: (908) 795-5200
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Issue on Attorneys' Fee in Hayes Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chembio Diagnostics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the issue on the
attorneys' fee in Ken Hayes v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard
L. Eberly, Gail S. Page, Katherine L. Davis, Mary Lake Polan, and
John G. Potthoff, has been amicably resolved.
On July 1, 2020, an alleged stockholder of Chembio filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York captioned Ken Hayes v. Chembio
Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, Gail S. Page, Katherine L.
Davis, Mary Lake Polan, and John G. Potthoff, which is referred to
as the Hayes case.
The Hayes complaint purported to state claims for violations of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a‑9 thereunder,
declaratory relief, and state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty for alleged misstatements of material information in the proxy
statement disseminated in advance of Chembio's Annual Meeting of
Stockholders held on July 28, 2020.
On July 8, 2020, Chembio filed an amended proxy statement
correcting, among other things, the issues raised in the Hayes
complaint.
On July 23, 2020, (a) Chembio and the plaintiff entered into a
stipulation to the dismissal of the Hayes action, with prejudice as
to the claims of the named plaintiff subject to plaintiff's
reservation of the right to apply for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses from Chembio in certain circumstances, and (b) the
plaintiff filed a notice dismissing his claims, with prejudice, as
to the individual defendants.
On July 27, 2020, the court entered an order closing the Hayes case
and providing that plaintiff would have until September 28, 2020 to
move to reopen the case if the attorneys' fee issue had not been
resolved.
Chembio subsequently resolved the attorneys' fee issue amicably
with the plaintiff.
Chembio Diagnostics Inc. develops diagnostic solutions. The Company
offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness,
dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and
veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Hauppauge, New York.
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Lead Plaintiff Bids in IPO Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chembio Diagnostics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motions for
appointment for lead plaintiff in the litigation related to the
company's DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System are currently pending for
determination by the court.
As of November 3, 2020, four purported securities class action
lawsuits had been filed by alleged stockholders of the company, and
were pending, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York:
-- Sergey Chernysh v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L.
Eberly, and Gail S. Page, filed on June 18, 2020, referred to as
the Chernysh case;
-- James Gowen v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L.
Eberly, and Gail S. Page, filed on June 22, 2020, referred to as
the Gowen case;
-- Anthony Bailey v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Richard J.
Eberly, Gail S. Page, and Neil A. Goldman, filed on July 3, 2020,
referred to as the Bailey case; and
-- Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations
Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P.
v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard Eberly, Gail S. Page, Robert
W. Baird & Co. Inc. and Dougherty & Company LLC, filed August 17,
2020, referred to as the Special Situations Funds case.
The plaintiffs in each of the cases allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Special Situations Funds complaint also asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating
to Chembio's May 2020 public offering.
The claims asserted in the complaints are based on purportedly
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
performance of the DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System.
The complaints collectively seek, among other things, an award of
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as an award of
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses, expert
fees, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, and such other
relief as the court deems just and proper.
The Special Situations Funds complaint also asserts that members of
the putative Section 11 class who continue to hold our common stock
have the right to rescind their purchases and recover the
consideration paid.
Chembio and the plaintiffs in the four cases have entered into
court-approved stipulations relieving the defendants of the
obligation to respond to the complaints in those cases pending the
designation of a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Two motions for appointment as lead plaintiff are currently pending
for determination by the court; no date has been set for a hearing
on any of those motions.
Chembio Diagnostics Inc. develops diagnostic solutions. The Company
offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness,
dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and
veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Hauppauge, New York.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Constangy Brooks Atty. Discusses Ruling in Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Shuster, Esq. -- fshuster@constangy.com -- of Constangy,
Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that back in April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued an opinion in the case Scott v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. that appears to make it much easier for collective
actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act to proceed to trial. The
court hit the "pause" button on enforcement of its order so that
the employer could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the
Supreme Court agrees to review the case, all employers may get
clarity on the showing required to pursue a collective action under
the FLSA and, hopefully, some relief from the feeding frenzy that
wage and hour litigation has become.
If you have not experienced the thrill of an Order denying
collective or class action certification in a wage and hour
lawsuit, you should. With the stroke of the pen a judge transforms
a case involving hundreds or thousands of employees, and millions
of dollars in potential liability, into one involving a handful of
employees and potential exposure that is best characterized as
"chump change." On the other hand, an Order granting certification
sets the stage for a settlement in which the employer pays less
than its worst-case scenario but far more than "chump change." As a
result, the legal standard by which certification is decided can
have substantial, real-world implications for all employers.
In keeping with our mantra that "Legalese Is Not Spoken Here," I
will not attempt to break down the Second Circuit's 44-page opinion
issued in April, or the eight-page dissent, or their descriptions
of the legal principles applicable to the grant or denial of
collective action or class action certification. Rather, I will
summarize the court's troubling conclusion. According to the
majority opinion, collective action certification is appropriate if
the plaintiffs "share one or more similar questions of law or fact
material to the disposition of their FLSA claims." As the majority
recognized, it was setting a standard for certification that is
lower than the standards required for class certification, joinder
of parties, or consolidation of cases at trial.
For those of us who defend employers, this standard can severely
undermine an employer's ability to convince a judge that a
collective action trial will break down into hundreds or thousands
of mini-trials due to the differing facts applicable to each
employee's claims. Indeed, and as the dissenting opinion
recognized, this new standard will "force courts to certify a
collective [action] if Plaintiffs share a single common issue" and
preclude it from being able to "weigh the similarities and
dissimilarities" between employees in order to determine whether
they are sufficiently similar to permit a collective action to
proceed to trial.
The Second Circuit's one-sentence decision to hit "pause" provided
no rationale. However, there appears to be a split between the
federal circuit courts as to the appropriate standard for
determining whether a collective action should be decertified or
allowed to proceed to trial on a collective basis. In addition,
considering the tidal wave of wage and hour class and collective
action litigation over the past 10-15 years, there can be little
doubt that this is a matter of national significance. A circuit
court split, on an issue of national significance, checks two
critical boxes on the checklist for Supreme Court review.
Fingers crossed that review is granted on this one. Toes crossed
that it results in favorable clarity for the employers who can see
the sharks in the water. [GN]
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Burning Bros. Seeks Payment for COVID Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
BURNING BROTHERS BREWING LLC, CHICAGO MAGIC LOUNGE LLC and CDC
CATERING, INC. T/A BROOKSIDE MANOR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00920-MWM (S.D.
Ohio, November 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant
for breach of contract.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has denied the insurance
claims of the Plaintiffs and Class members under Business Income,
Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverage. The Plaintiffs
purchased insurance coverage from the Defendant to protect their
businesses in the event that they suddenly had to suspend
operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they had to
act in order to prevent further property damage. The Defendant's
Special Property Coverage Form promises to pay for loss due to the
necessary suspension of operations following loss to property. The
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to obligate the Defendant to
pay them for business income losses incurred in connection with the
closure orders issued by civil authorities and the necessary
interruption of their businesses stemming from the COVID-19
pandemic.
Burning Brothers Brewing LLC is a brewing business with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.
CDC Catering Inc. T/A Brookside Manor is a catering services
provider, with its principal place of business in
Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania.
Chicago Magic Lounge LLC is a magic bar, theater and lounge
operator, with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business in Fairfield, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
E-mail: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
madicello@dicellolevitt.com
mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Skip McBride, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
- and –
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2302
E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and –
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
- and –
Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq.
Marni S. Berger, Esq.
Samuel B. Dordick, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
E-mail: rmongeluzzi@smbb.com
hgoddman@smbb.com
sdordick@smbb.com
- and –
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Karns Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KRYSTAL KARNS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Case No.
1:20-cv-04952, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on November 12, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-09523-UA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act for its
failure to properly secure and protect the personally identifiable
information (PII) of Illinois residents who applied for the
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program benefits.
Deloitte Consulting LLP is a company that offers consulting
services, with its principal place of business in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 619-8966
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
- and –
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and –
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: mona@kazlg.com
- and –
David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (224) 218-0882
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com
- and –
Steven G. Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (224) 218-0875
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com
E.W. RESHARD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Landscapers, Scott Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY SCOTT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. E.W. RESHARD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00261-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., November 9, 2020) brings this
complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act requiring the
Defendant to pay back wages owed to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated landscapers.
The Plaintiff has begun working with the Defendant as a landscaper
in or around February 2018 until he was constructively discharged
by the Defendant in or around August 2018.
The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working more than 40
hours in a week, the Defendant willingly, deliberately and
intentionally refused to pay him and those similarly situated at
least the applicable minimum wage and overtime compensation at a
rate of one and one-half times their usual hourly rate for all the
hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week since the
beginning of his employment with the Defendant.
E.W. Reshard, Inc. provides landscaping services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
309 NE 1st Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
Tel: (352) 244-2069
Fax: (352) 372-3464
E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com
ENTERPRISE CRUDE: McClintock Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA PARKS MCCLINTOCK, v.
ENTERPRISE CRUDE OIL LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00136-KEW (E.D. Okla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class consisting of:
"All non-excluded persons or entities to whom: (1)
Enterprise (or Enterprise's designee) made an Untimely
Payment of oil and/or gas proceeds from an Oklahoma well
on or after April 26, 2012 through September 1, 2020, and
(2) who have not been paid statutory interest on the
Untimely Payment per the Production Revenue Standards Act.
An "Untimely Payment" for purposes of this class
definition means payment of proceeds from the sale of oil
and/or gas production from an oil and/or gas well after
the statutory periods identified in OKLA. STAT. tit. 52 §
570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later than six (6)
months after the date of first sale, and thereafter not
later than the last day of the 2nd succeeding months after
the end of the month within which such production is
sold). Untimely Payments do not include: (a) payments of
proceeds to an owner under OKLA. STAT. tit. 52 section
570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay); (b) prior period adjustments;
or (c) pass-through payments."
The persons or entities excluded from the Class are: (1)
agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (2)
Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma
(CLO); (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their
affiliates; (4) Citation Oil and Gas Corp. and its
affiliates; (5) persons or entities that Plaintiff's
counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7
of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, including,
but not limited to, Charles David Nutley, Danny George,
Dan McClure, Kelly McClure Callant, and their relatives;
and (6) officers of the court;
2. preliminarily approving the settlement against the
Defendant Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC;
3. appointing herself as Class Representative of the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Nix Patterson, LLP; Ryan Whaley Coldiron
Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC; and Barnes & Lewis, LLP as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, and Whitten
Burrage, LLP and Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr. as liaison local
counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
Settlement to the Settlement Class;
6. appointing a Settlement Administrator; and
7. setting a hearing date for approval of the Settlement and
application for an award of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation
Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Defendant Enterprise
valued at $5,900,000.00. The Settlement provides for a cash payment
of $5,900,000.00 (the Gross Settlement Fund) to compensate the
Settlement Class for past damages.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on March 11, 2016 with the
filing of the Original Petition against Defendant ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation in the District Court of Carter County, State of
Oklahoma. On April 13, 2016, ExxonMobil removed the Litigation to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
In the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged
the Defendant ignored its obligation under Oklahoma law to pay
statutory interest to owners in Oklahoma entitled to receive oil
and gas proceeds through a uniform policy and practice by which it
did not pay statutory interest to any owners unless the owner
specifically requested Defendant do so. Based on these allegations,
the Plaintiff brought claims for breach of statutory obligation to
pay interest, fraud, accounting and disgorgement, and injunctive
relief.
Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC transports, stores, and markets crude oil
and natural gas. The Company wholesales and distributes petroleum
and petroleum products. Enterprise Crude Oil operates in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma and transports gas throughout Oklahoma and Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify the settlement class
dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nEq4zO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy.
Building B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
dpate@nixlaw.com
tduck@nixlaw.com
- and -
Susan Whatley, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
P.O. Box 178
Linden, TX 75563
Telephone: (903) 215-8310
E-mail: swhatley@nixlaw.com
- and -
Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
Phillip G. Whaley, Esq.
Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
Paula M. Jantzen, Esq.
RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON
JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER PLLC
400 North Walnut Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73140
Telephone: (405) 239-6040
Facsimile: (405) 239-6766
E-mail: pryan@ryanwhaley.com
pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com
jryan@ryanwhaley.com
pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com
- and -
Michael Burrage, Esq.
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
- and -
Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
Patranell Lewis, Esq.
BARNES & LEWIS, LLP
208 N.W. 60th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 843-0363
Facsimile: (405) 843-0790
E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com
plewis@barneslewis.com
- and -
Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
SMOLEN LAW
611 S. Detroit Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74120
E-mail: larry@smolen.law
FCI LENDER: Settlement in Diaz FDCPA Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Altagracia Diaz, on behalf of plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCI Lender Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-8686 (AJN) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement; and her Application for Award of Attorney's Fees
and Expenses and an Incentive Award for the Class Representative.
On Nov. 18, 2017, Lead Plaintiff Diaz filed the lawsuit against
Defendant FCI, and moved for class certification. FCI is a
mortgage servicer which specializes in defaulted mortgages. The
Lead Plaintiff alleged that FCI falsely informed borrowers that
they owed late fees which accrued after their mortgages had been
accelerated. When FCI took over her loan, they sent a "welcome
letter" which allegedly included post-acceleration late fees in its
balance, and warned her that she could continue to accrue late fees
even though her mortgage had been accelerated. After Diaz sent a
request for the validation of the debt, FCI allegedly sent her a
"Demand Loan Payoff" which showed that late fees continued to
accrue on the loan.
The Plaintiff claims that accrual of post-acceleration late fees on
her mortgage would violate New York law and that the Defendant's
statements to the contrary were false representations in violation
of the FDCPA, specifically 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. The Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied.
The parties then reached the settlement for the proposed class,
which was given preliminary approval by the Court. Notices were
successfully sent to 109 class members, one of whom opted out of
the class. However, at the fairness hearing, the Court raised an
ambiguity in the settlement agreement and class notices. The
parties initially contemplated that each of the 87 mortgage
accounts at issue would receive one pro-rated share of a $65,000
settlement fund. Thus, if one account had multiple borrowers, they
would have to split one share. But the class notices stated that
each class member would receive one share of the settlement fund,
estimated to be $764.70.
In order to avoid sending new notices, the parties decided to give
each class member a $764.70 payment and executed a modification to
the settlement agreement to that effect. The modification brought
the actual settlement agreement into alignment with the relief
described in the class notices.
The settlement defines the class as (a) all individuals (b) with a
loan that was more than 90 days behind at the time FCI began
servicing it, according to the records of FCI, (c) with a
corresponding address as the property address, (d) that had been
accelerated, (e) where FCI sent the individual a document that
referred to late charges (f) accrued since acceleration (g) where
the document was sent at any time during a period beginning Nov. 9,
2016 and ending Nov. 29, 2017.
The Class Counsel seek $35,000 in fees and costs as well as an
incentive award to the lead Plaintiff of $5,000.
Having considered the written submissions of the parties, having
held a final fairness hearing, and having considered the arguments
offered at that hearing, Judge Nathan finds that (i) the Class
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) the notice of the terms of
the Settlement provided to the Class was appropriate; (iii) the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iv) the attorney's
fee award is reasonable as 30% is within the range of fee awards
typically awarded; and (v) an incentive award of $5,000 to the lead
Plaintiff is appropriate in light of the efforts she expended for
the benefit of the class.
For the reasons stated, Judge Nathan accordingly granted final
approval of the parties' class settlement and approved the
requested award for service payments, attorneys' fees and expense
reimbursements.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxedy8xc from
Leagle.com.
FONDS D'AIDE: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Attar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq. -- aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- and Michel Gagne,
Esq. -- mgagne@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, report that in its recent decision in Attar v.
Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives et al, 2020 QCCA 1121, the
Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court judge's refusal
when approving settlement of the class proceeding to grant an
indemnity of $5,000 to the representative plaintiff to compensate
him for his participation in the class action.
In support of this claim, the representative alleged that he had
invested time and effort in order to play his role as
representative, and that in our digital age, his name would
henceforth and forever be associated with the "Red Bull class
action". He also alleged that the amount claimed was modest and had
not been contested by any member of the group.
The trial judge had determined that Article 593 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) did not permit any remuneration of the
representative, other than disbursements, legal fees and attorney's
fees, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, and that this
principle applied both when a judgment is rendered on the merits
and when a settlement is approved by the Court.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, noting in passing that
the Minister of Justice's comments on article 593 C.C.P.
specifically mention that the article does not provide for
compensation for the time and energy devoted to litigation, and
rejecting the representative's contention that article 593 C.C.P.
did not apply in the context of a class action settlement
approval.
This decision closes the door to the inclusion in a settlement of
any form of remuneration for the representative in a class action
in Quebec, whereas such remuneration is permitted in other Canadian
provinces and in the United States. [GN]
FTE NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Michigan Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
FTE Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company, together
with Vision Property Management, LLC, continues to defend a class
action suit before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
On September 29, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Vision Property Management, LLC and related entities,
including the Company and US Home Rentals LLC, as successor
defendants, in connection with claims arising out of various
regulations, including the Fair Housing Act, the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, and the Truth in Lending Act.
The Company is evaluating this action and intends to vigorously
defend its interests in this matter.
Moreover, the Company plans to seek indemnification from the Rental
Home Portfolio Sellers for this and the legacy matters listed below
pursuant to its indemnification rights under the Rental Home
Portfolio Asset Purchase Agreement.
Additionally, there are legal proceedings arising out of the legacy
Vision business that implicate certain of the Company's existing
rental properties. A brief summary of these matters are:
-- In November 2016, the State of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit
against Vision Property Management, LLC and related entities owning
properties within the state, in connection with claims arising out
of state landlord-tenant laws. This matter was settled in December
2018, pending a final agreement regarding fines and restitution.
-- In March 2017, the State of Maryland filed a lawsuit
against Vision Property Management, LLC and related entities owning
properties within the state, in connection with claims arising out
of state lead paint laws. This matter was settled in December 2017,
subject to the payment of fines, which remain outstanding as of the
date of this filing.
-- On August 1, 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit
against Vision Property Management, LLC and related entities owning
properties within the state, alleging violations of state lending
laws in connection with claims arising out of certain lease-to-own
agreements. This matter was settled in December 2019.
-- On August 31, 2018, a private class action lawsuit was
filed in New Jersey (not yet certified) against Vision Property
Management, LLC and related entities owning properties within the
state, in connection with claims arising out of state
landlord-tenant laws. The case remains pending and settlement
negotiations are underway.
-- On October 10, 2019, the State of Pennsylvania filed a
lawsuit against Vision Property Management, LLC and related
entities owning properties within the state claims arising out of
certain lease-to-own agreements. The case remains pending and
settlement negotiations are ongoing.
FTE Networks said, "There can be no assurance with respect to the
outcome of any current or future litigation brought against us, and
we may not have sufficient liquidity to fund the defense of any
such litigation. An adverse outcome of any of the foregoing legal
proceedings, or the inability to settle any such legal proceedings
on favorable terms, could have a material adverse impact on our
business, operating results and financial condition."
Formerly known as Beacon Enterprise Solutions Group, FTE Networks,
Inc. together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a provider
of innovative, technology-oriented solutions for smart platforms,
network infrastructure and buildings. The Company provides
end-to-end design, construction management, build and support
solutions for state-of-the-art networks, data centers, residential,
and commercial properties and services Fortune 100/500 companies.
FTE has three complementary business offerings which are predicated
on smart design and consistent standards that reduce deployment
costs and accelerate delivery of innovative projects and services.
The company is based in New York, New York.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevy Camaro Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Mihnea Radu, writing for autoevolution, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has begun in September, filed in the U.S. District Court in
the state of Delaware, and it alleges that General Motors
"knowingly sold Chevy Camaro models without disclosing that the
vehicles are plagued by a starter and/or heat shield defect."
Besides the technical details of this lawsuit, what really strikes
us is the size and scope. It could affect every Camaro made after
2010 or over 750,000 of them. Basically, every modern 'Maro owner
should know about this. So what's the issue?
There's an issue with heat buildup in the wires that connect to the
starter, which in some cases can melt. In addition, the lawsuit
says the pinion and starter gear are permanently connected to the
flywheel, which damages them over time and causes the heating of
the cables.
"GM's failure to disclose the starter defect at the time of
purchase is material because no reasonable consumer expects to
spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace
damaged vehicle components that the manufacturer knows will fail
well before the expected useful life of the component and damage
other components of the vehicle as well," the lawsuit says. "Had GM
disclosed the starter defect, the plaintiff and class members would
not have purchased the class vehicles or would have paid less for
them."
Engines that don't start are indeed one of the most common problems
you'll find online with the Camaro. General Motors reportedly knew
about this since 2010 but decided not to do anything about it for
either of the two generations. However, from what we gather, there
aren't that many instances of starters going bad, and the no-start
either has to do with the battery being in the trunk or mixed
signals from the key. [GN]
GETWELLNETWORK INC: Richey Labor Class Suit Goes to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIKA KATHLEEN RICHEY, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. GETWELLNETWORK, INC.,
SEAN THOMPSON, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00035938-CU-OE-NC, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on November 12, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02205-BEN-BLM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Government Code, California Labor Code, and California
Business and Professions Code including failure to engage in the
interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodation,
disparate treatment, wrongful termination, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, failure to pay regular and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods,
failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, failure to properly
itemize wage statements, and unlawful and unfair business
practices.
GetWellNetwork, Inc. is a company that provides healthcare
services, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Collin D. Cook, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
San Francisco, CA 94111-3712
Telephone: (415) 490-9000
Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
E-mail: ccook@fisherphillips.com
- and –
Phillip G. Simpler, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
E-mail: psimpler@fisherphillips.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Class of Employees Certified in Mebane FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA
WORSHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18CV892
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a
Collective Action under section 216(b) of Fair Labor
Standards Act;
2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
under Rule 23, only insofar as the Plaintiffs seek relief
for violations of the NCWHA resulting from the Defendant's
policy of rounding time and denied as to all other claims;
3. directing the Plaintiffs to resubmit an updated proposed
notice edited to comply with all current and previous
Orders of this Court within 15 days of this Order. Those
edits include, but are not limited to appropriate dates, a
seventy-five-day opt-in period, the new class definition,
and the dismissal of all claims unrelated to Defendant's
rounding policy;
4. directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with the
information within 15 days of this Order; and
5. certifying a class:
"individuals who were, are, or will be employed at
Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on the
manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not
compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages due to
the Defendant's rounding policy, including, but not
limited to, compensation for all hours worked up to 40 in
a week and for hours worked above 40 in a week within two
years prior to the commencement of this action, through
the present."
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HeAQxm at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOD SAMARITAN: COVID-19 Patients, Families File Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Parsons, writing for CBC News, reports that Residents and
families of residents of an Edmonton care centre where 32 people
have died of COVID-19 have launched an effort to bring a $20
million class-action lawsuit against the Good Samaritan Society.
The plaintiffs -- a group of Good Samaritan Southgate Care Centre
residents and their families -- allege that negligence and
deficiencies in care contributed to residents contracting and in
some cases dying of COVID-19.
None of the allegations made in the filed statement of claim have
been proven in court.
The 18-page claim filed with Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton on
Aug. 12 argues that the Good Samaritan Society (GSS) ought to pay
millions in damages to the plaintiffs over alleged "egregious,
outrageous and unlawful conduct of GSS and, in particular, their
callous disregard for the health and lives of frail, elderly
patients."
Lawyer Basil Bansal is representing the group. He said there are
roughly 80 people involved so far, but that his firm is still
receiving calls and emails from others identifying themselves.
Bansal alleges that problems began with poor preparation to respond
to a possible outbreak, but said the main issue was with
mishandling isolation within the facility as cases occurred.
"If isolation was done adequately, the numbers may have been less
or avoided altogether," he said.
He said the purpose of the lawsuit is twofold: to get compensation
for families and residents who have endured pain and suffering, and
to trigger systemic change to improve the level of care and safety
in seniors' living facilities generally.
"At the end of the day this is someone's home, and they're paying
to be there so they're entitled to safety. I think safety measures
have failed, and the sheer volume of people affected? That's where
the problem arises," he said.
The statement of claim alleges a number of allegations about
breakdowns and deficiencies in the centre's level of care for
residents, and in the ongoing response to COVID-19. In order to
proceed, the lawsuit would have to be certified as a class-action
suit.
"GSS is well aware that their drive to maximize corporate profits
comes at a cost of poor resident care, injuries, serious pain and
suffering, and premature, painful death to the residents of the
GSS," the claim alleges.
As of Sept. 5, there had been 32 deaths, with seven active cases in
residents and two in staff at the Southgate care centre. According
to the centre's own reporting, 40 residents and 31 employees have
recovered from bouts with the virus. The outbreak at the facility
at 4225 107th St. was first declared on June 13, and is considered
the deadliest outbreak care centre outbreak in Alberta.
The latest death comes nearly two weeks since two previous were
reported on Aug. 23. Twenty-three people had died due to the
outbreak as of the claim's filing on Aug. 12.
In response to a request for an interview, Michelle, Bonnici, Good
Samaritan interim president and CEO, said the society has received
the statement of claim.
"Since this is considered active litigation, I am sure you can
appreciate that we are not in a position to make any further
comment," Bonnici said in an emailed statement.
In previous updates, Bonnici and Alberta Health shared that the
centre has worked with Alberta Health Services in an attempt to
curb the spread through reduced contact, increased sanitization and
enhanced testing.
The centre cancelled outdoor visits and brought in additional
cleaning staff. It screens employees and residents twice a day.
AHS had considered taking over day-to-day operations of the
facility in mid-July, but decided the move was not necessary. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Uses Cellular Data for Digital Ads, Taylor Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TAYLOR, EDWARD MLAKAR, MICK CLEARY, and EUGENE ALVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2020)
involves the application of long-standing common law principles to
seek redress for Google's secret appropriation of Android users'
cellular data allowances.
Pursuing claims for conversion and quantum meruit, the Plaintiffs
seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers (excluding
California residents) who own Android mobile devices that secretly
use their costly cellular data plans to enable Google's
surveillance activities.
The Plaintiffs contend that Google has a "dirty little secret"
where it designed the Android 3 operating system to collect vast
amounts of information about users, which it uses to generate
billions in profit annually by selling targeted digital
advertisements. There are privacy implications for an operating
system specifically designed to surveil mobile device users in
order to refine Google's targeted advertising business.
But in the course of mobile surveillance, there is also an unlawful
taking of Android users' property -- namely, their cellular data.
Google effectively forces these users to subsidize its surveillance
by secretly programming Android devices to constantly transmit user
information to Google in real time, thus appropriating the valuable
cellular data users have purchased. Google does this, in large
measure, for its own financial benefit, and without informing users
or seeking their consent.
The Plaintiffs bought Android mobile devices that use with monthly
unlimited cellular data plan purchased from various carriers.
Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ann Ravel, Esq.
McMANIS FAULKNER
50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408) 279-8700
Facsimile: (408) 279-3244
E-mail: aravel@mcmanislaw.com
- and -
Glen E.Summers, Esq.
Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq.
Alison G. Wheeler, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-3100
Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
E-mail: glen.summers@bartlitbeck.com
karma.giulanelli@bartlitbeck.com
alison.wheeler@bartlitbeck.com
INTERFACE INC: Faces Swanson Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS S. SWANSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. INTERFACE, INC., DANIEL T. HENDRIX, JAY D.
GOULD, and BRUCE A. HAUSMANN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05518 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 12, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than the
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Interface
securities between March 2, 2018 and September 28, 2020, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that Interface had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting.
On April 24, 2019, the Defendants filed a current report on Form
8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosing that
Interface "received a letter in November 2017 from the [SEC]
requesting that the Company voluntarily provide information and
documents in connection with an investigation into the Company's
historical quarterly [EPS] calculations and rounding practices
during the period 2014-2017"; that "[t]he Company subsequently
received subpoenas from the SEC in February 2018, July 2018 and
April 2019 requesting additional documents and information"; and
that "[i]n the fourth quarter of 2018, the Company conducted at the
SEC's request an internal investigation into these and other
related issues for seven quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017."
On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019.
Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws.
On this news, Interface's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18
per share on September 29, 2020
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff acquired Interface securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Interface is a modular flooring company that designs, produces, and
sells modular carpet products primarily in the Americas, Europe,
and the Asia-Pacific. The Company was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The Individual Defendants are
officers of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
IRAN: Canada Delivers Class Actions Over Flight PS752 Shoot-Down
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that The Islamic
Republic of Iran has been served, almost eight months after the
fact.
The federal government confirmed to lawyers recently that it
delivered two class-action lawsuits to Tehran's foreign affairs
ministry, clearing a roadblock for the civil suits over January's
airliner shoot-down to move ahead in Canadian courts.
The actions were filed in January soon after the crash of Ukraine
International Airlines Flight PS752, and Ottawa was legally obliged
to serve them on Iran, a defendant in both cases.
The delay in doing so triggered speculation that Canada was
embroiled in talks to revive diplomatic relations with Tehran, and
didn't want to ruffle feathers by presenting the legal claims.
But after the lawyer spearheading one of the suits, Mark Arnold,
complained in court about the delay, a federal government
representative said logistical factors related to COVID-19 — not
politics — had made the process difficult.
For months, however, Ottawa had said nothing about what was
happening, Arnold said on Sept. 8.
"I'm delighted that Global Affairs Canada, after having this claim
in their possession for eight months, has finally figured out a way
to serve it on Iran," he said.
But, the lawyer added, the department "has to be more transparent
and more co-operative, particularly in the face of this tragedy."
A letter dated Sept. 1 from Michelle Campbell, deputy director of
criminal, security and diplomatic law at Global Affairs Canada,
says the documents had been served on the "appropriate authority"
of Iran's foreign affairs ministry.
Tom Arndt, the lawyer heading that case, declined to comment, but
the federal "certificate of service" for his suit was posted on the
class action's website.
The news comes a few days after Iran said it was prepared to begin
compensation talks with Canada and other countries that had victims
on the flight.
For now, the lawsuits are proceeding separately from that process.
The plane crashed outside Tehran on Jan. 8, killing 176 passengers
and crew in what was a largely Canadian tragedy. The victims
included 55 citizens of this country and 30 permanent residents,
among 138 passengers heading to Canada via Kyiv, many of them
students returning after the Christmas break.
Iranian authorities originally claimed the crash was an accident,
but under pressure admitted that air defence forces had mistakenly
fired two missiles at the Boeing 737 amid tension with the United
States.
Black boxes retrieved from the wreckage revealed recently that
pilots spoke for about 19 seconds after the first missile hit and
before the second one.
The two class-action lawsuits are taking divergent approaches to
the case.
Arnold's alleges the downing of the plane was an act of terrorism.
The suit headed by Arndt accuses Iran of negligence.
Ontario law requires the federal government to serve a civil
lawsuit on a foreign state if it's named as a defendant.
As Ottawa was struggling to find a way to do that, Arnold said he
used process servers, courier companies and email to serve the
individual defendants named in his suit, ranging from senior
officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to Iranian Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The law firm emailed a copy of the suit to Khamenei, and received
an acknowledgement in response, he said.
Service was also carried out at Iranian missions in Australia and
the U.K., said Arnold.
Meanwhile, a hearing in October on "carriage" will likely choose
one of the law firms to move ahead in charge of a single class
action, the lawyer said. [GN]
JANON ELECTRIC: Pavon FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TITO ALBERTO PAVON and
RODNEY CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated individuals v. JANON ELECTRIC CORP., MICHAEL'S ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTING INC., MICHAEL POSAS, and IRENE POSAS, Case No.
1:20-cv-05899-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an order at a time and date to be determined by the
Court, for an order granting conditional certification,
court-authorized notice, expedited discovery, and equitable
tolling, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), as well as such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
4, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32KYOaP at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fausto E. Zapata, Esq.
FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, PC
277 Broadway, Suite 206
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 766-98970
E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com
- and -
Jason L. Solotraoff, Esq.
90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 964 9640
JAY'S JUNK: Faces Brooks Suit Over Unpaid OT for Drivers, Haulers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY BROOKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAY'S JUNK REMOVAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03332 (D. Colo., November 9, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
deprivation of the Plaintiff's rights to overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver and junk
hauler from December 5, 2018 through September 23, 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant scheduled him and other
similarly situated drivers and junk haulers to regularly work 48
hour shifts per week aside from the additional shifts they
routinely worked to cover for other employees who were on leave.
However, the Defendant failed to compensate them at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all the hours
they worked over 40 in a workweek, including those time they spent
performing duties before the start of their shift and after the end
of their shift. Instead, the Defendant paid them straight time
rate.
Additionally, the Defendant routinely failed to compensate the
Plaintiff despite the fact that he recorded all of his work time on
Deputy.
Jay's Junk Removal, LLC provides junk furniture and other large
items removal and delivery services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
JUST ENERGY: Asks 6th Cir. to Reconsider FLSA Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that energy conglomerate Just Energy asked the full
Sixth Circuit to reconsider a divided panel's ruling that a class
of employees is covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act, arguing
the majority flouted U.S. Supreme Court precedent and created an
untenable circuit split with its interpretation of an exemption for
outside salespeople. [GN]
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windshields
---------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Yandery
Sanchez has become the lead plaintiff in a class action complaint,
filed in Central California, against Kia Motors America Inc. (Kia).
Sanchez alleges Kia is responsible for knowingly selling defective
windshields. Sanchez states the allegedly defective windshields
crack, chip and/or fracture spontaneously.
According to the class action complaint, 2020 Kia Telluride
windshields fail "for no reason other than they were defective from
the beginning." Sanchez alleges Kia skipped issuing a recall of its
Telluride windshields because of a "goodwill gesture" that implied
the auto manufacturer would replace them. The windshields allegedly
crack, chip and fracture due to design or manufacturing defects
that existed since the Tellurides went on sale, according to the
complaint.
Sanchez is seeking the following:
1. An order certifying the proposed Class;
2. Money damages in the form of a refund of the full contract
price;
3. Equitable relief including but not limited to, replacement of
the class vehicles with new vehicles, or repair of the alleged
defective vehicles with an extension of the express warranties and
service contracts;
4. A declaration requiring Kia to comply with the various
provisions of the state and federal consumer protection statutes
herein alleged and to make all the required disclosures;
5. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
6. A recall of the alleged defective windshields by Kia.
Background
Sanchez purchased a new 2020 Kia Telluride in November 2019. His
windshield cracked in January 2020 and Sanchez claims he didn't see
anything hit his windshield. The crack spread and additional cracks
began to appear on the vehicle's windshield.
"It was not hit by debris from the road. They both start from the
edge of the glass and spread across the windshield. I contacted the
local dealership and can have it replaced for $800. I think this
should be a recall due to it being a widespread issue," Sanchez
said in his class action complaint.
Sanchez stated had he and other class members known about the
alleged windshield defect they would not have purchased the
Telluride, or they would have paid "substantially less for them."
"Kia knew of and concealed the windshield defect that is contained
in every class vehicle," a portion of the complaint reads.
According to Sanchez, he along with other class members have
suffered a loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their
class vehicles and should be compensated.
Kia has yet to respond to the class action complaint or any of its
allegations. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for more
information on this suit. [GN]
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Motion for Class Certification Stricken
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, et al. v.
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order:
1. striking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
the supporting materials are not in compliance with the
Individual Rules. The Plaintiff shall re-file its motion
and supporting materials in accordance with the Individual
Rules by November 9, 2020.;
2. directing the parties to comply with the Individual Rules
on exhibits, they may submit full versions of excerpted
materials by e-mail in accordance with the Court's
Emergency Rules and Practices (COVID-19); and
3. directing the Defendant to comply with the Individual
Rules on exhibits and page limits on its opposition which
shall be filed by November 30, 2020. The Plaintiff's reply
shall be filed by December 11, 2020.
Lexus of Manhattan sells and services LEXUS vehicles in the greater
New York area.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32MvBwi at no extra charge.[CC]
LITTLE CAESAR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Lenoir's BIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIVEA LENOIR and BRIANNA STARTS, Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE
CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1575 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' governing first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs Lenoir and Starts bring the proposed class action
against Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises ("LCE") for alleged
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"). Lenoir and Starts are both former employees of the
Defendant. Lenoir worked at a Little Caesars pizza restaurant in
Chicago, Illinois from July 2018 to May 2019, while Starts worked
at a Little Caesars pizza restaurant in Tinley Park, Illinois from
February 2018 to July or August 2018.
During their employment, the Defendant required the Plaintiffs and
other employees to use a biometric time clock system to record
their time worked. In particular, it required them to scan their
fingerprints in the biometric time clock when they started working
a shift, stopped for a break, returned from a break, and finished
working a shift. By requiring employees to use their fingerprints
to record their time, instead of identification numbers or badges
only, the Defendant ensured that one employee could not clock in
for another.
According to the Complaint, the Defendant collected, stored, used,
and transferred the unique biometric fingerprint identifiers and
information of the Plaintiffs and the others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of BIPA. In
particular, the Complaint alleges, the Defendant never obtained the
Plaintiffs' written consent or release before collecting, storing,
disseminating, or using their fingerprints. It also shared the
Plaintiffs' unique biometric identifiers with its time-keeping
vendor without their consent.
Further, the Defendant allegedly stored the Plaintiffs' biometric
identifiers without publishing data retention and destruction
policies required by BIPA. The Plaintiffs allege that they suffer
emotional distress over whether the Defendant is currently storing,
or will eventually dispose of, their biometric identifiers and
information securely and because they recognize that they will not
learn of any data breach that compromises their biometric
identifiers and information until after that data breach has
occurred.
According to the Complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known
of the requirements of BIPA because the law was enacted in 2008 and
numerous articles and court filings about the statute's
requirements were published before the Defendant employed the
Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Complaint alleges, the Defendant's
violations of BIPA were reckless or, in the alternative, negligent.
The Plaintiffs seek liquidated monetary damages for each violation
of BIPA, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Currently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Defendant argues that
Plaintiff Lenoir voluntarily gave up any right to pursue a BIPA
claim because she affirmatively consented to provide her finger
scan for the stated purpose of verifying her identity to access
Caesar Vision, LCE's timekeeping system. The Plaintiff responds
that these exhibits are not properly before the Court on a motion
to dismiss and, even if they were, do not warrant dismissal of
Lenoir's BIPA claims.
Judge Dow agrees with the Plaintiff on both points. The Judge
finds that the Defendant misstates the Complaint. The Complaint
alleges that the Defendant never provided the Plaintiffs any
written materials about its collection, retention, destruction,
use, or dissemination of their fingerprints before requiring them
to use a biometric time clock and never obtained their written
consent, or release as a condition of employment, before
collecting, storing, disseminating, or using their fingerprints.
These allegations are not rendered false by the Defendant's alleged
evidence that Lenoir signed a consent six months after it had
already collected, retained, used, and disseminated her
fingerprints.
Even if the documents attached to the motion to dismiss were
properly before the Court on a motion to dismiss, they fail to
establish that Lenoir's BIPA claim is necessarily barred as a
matter of law. The Judge therefore concludes that it would be
inappropriate, at this early stage of the case, to dismiss Lenoir's
claims based on the Jan. 16, 2019 consent.
The Defendant argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because
the Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that its violation of BIPA
was negligent or reckless. According to the Defendant, in order to
recover under BIPA, the Plaintiffs must adequately allege either a
negligent or reckless violation of the statute.
The Judge fails to see why such allegations should be required to
state a BIPA claim. The Plaintiffs complain about the Defendant's
failure to provide them with BIPA-required notices or obtain their
written consent prior to collecting and using their fingerprints --
not about the reasonableness of its storage, transmittal, or
protection of biometric identifiers in its possession, which are
the subjects of subsection 14/15(e). Finally, assuming for sake of
argument that the Plaintiffs must at minimum allege that the
Defendant's violation of BIPA was negligent in order to survive a
motion to dismiss, the Complaint's allegations are sufficient.
The Defendant's final argument is that the Complaint is barred by
the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act ("IWCA"). It asserts that
the Plaintiffs are "necessarily claiming a workplace injury" by
alleging that they experienced emotional distress as a result of
the Defendant's BIPA violations, and therefore their "exclusive
remedy" is through the IWCA.
The Judge opines that the Illinois Supreme Court in Pathfinder Co.
v. Indus. Comm'n stated that the test for whether an employee
suffered a compensable injury is whether there was a harmful change
in the human organism -- not just its bones and muscles, but its
brain and nerves as well. Under this test, multiple courts in the
district have found that the IWCA does not preempt BIPA injuries --
even if those injuries happen in the workplace. Similarly,
numerous trial courts in Illinois have found that privacy injuries
are distinct from those preempted by the IWCA. The Judge will
follow the other courts that have addressed the issue and denies
the motion to dismiss on the basis of IWCA preemption.
For these reasons, Judge Dow denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyjwnd7h from
Leagle.com.
LYNEER STAFFING: Protective Order Entered in Trejo Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California has entered a Stipulated
Protective Order in the case, ANITA TREJO, Plaintiffs, v. LYNEER
STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC; CIERA STAFFING, LLC; EMPLOYERS HR LLC;
YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC. and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04132 DSF (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).
In the putative class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleges that the Defendants
violated the law by failing to pay for all hours worked and not
providing legally compliant meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff
also alleges a host of other Labor Code violations stemming, in
large part, from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay for all
hours worked and said meal and rest period violations.
In connection with discovery in the lawsuit, the Plaintiff has
sought certain documents, written discovery responses, deposition
testimony, and other items containing confidential information.
The parties recognize that employers such as the Defendants are
obligated to maintain the right to privacy guaranteed by the
California Constitution, which protects the putative class members'
files from improper disclosure to third parties. They also
recognize that certain documents may also involve or be the subject
of confidentiality provisions, for which they desire to maintain
pursuant to agreements unrelated to the lawsuit. Accordingly, the
parties stipulated to and petitioned the Court to enter their
Stipulated Protective Order.
The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
deposition testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or
their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material, other than
during a court hearing or at trial.
Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.
Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.
After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected
Material." Whether the Protected Material is returned or
destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification
to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to
the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies
(by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that
was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party
has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or
any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.
Notwithstanding that provision, the cCounsel is entitled to retain
an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial,
deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,
correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports,
attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even
if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival
copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject
to the Protective Order as set forth in Section
Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yye7rcqp from Leagle.com.
Daniel Chammas -- dchammas@fordharrison.com -- Jennifer S. McGeorge
-- jmcgeorge@fordharrison.com -- FORD & HARRISON LLP, Los Angeles,
CA, Attorneys for Defendant, YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC Kevin Mahoney -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net --
Katherine J. Odenbreit -- kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- John A.
Young Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANITA TREJO.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Stacey M. Cooper --
Stacey.Cooper@jacksonlewis.com -- Attorney for Defendants, LYNEER
STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, CIERA STAFFING, LLC, AND EMPLOYERS HR,
LLC.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Stay McCurdy Putative Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to stay
filed in the putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar
Technologies Inc., et al., No. T19-074, has been denied.
On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et
al., No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of
management and the board of directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2,
2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of
its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe.
On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the same set of
defendants as set forth in his original complaint. The lawsuit is
based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the
Colorado Action.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements
regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those
related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or
misleading when made.
On June 29, 2020, defendants moved to stay this case, which motion
was denied on September 29, 2020.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits in Colorado and in Canada
alleging violation of the federal securities laws.
On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
(the "Colorado Action"), naming Maxar and members of management as
defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company's public
disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities
laws and seeking monetary damages.
On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members
of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or
misleading during the class period.
On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado
Action. On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part, and
denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss.
Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada
issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v.
Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management
claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and
seeking monetary damages.
On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder
resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit
captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management
and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's
auditor, KPMG LLP.
On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 lawsuit was discontinued.
The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading
during the class period and claims damages of $700 million.
On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for
leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action
as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending.
The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MELBOURNE: Andrews Government Faces Class Actions Over Lockdowns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matilda Boseley, writing for The Guardian, reports that the Andrews
government is facing three class-action lawsuits over the lockdowns
imposed during Melbourne's second wave of coronavirus, with
potentially thousands of plaintiffs seeking damages.
Victoria reported 42 new coronavirus cases on Sept. 14 and eight
people died of Covid in the preceding 24 hours.
A Melbourne legal firm, Carbone Lawyers, filed a claim on behalf of
workers who had lost income or suffered psychological damage due to
strict social distancing laws. The managing partner, Tony Carbone,
told Guardian Australia more than 100 plaintiffs had signed on
prior to Sept. 14.
"The office has been inundate," he said. "We have even fielded
inquiries from people who are incarcerated, ringing and saying
because of the second lockdown they have been locked in their rooms
-- the psychological damage that would cause."
The Carbone-led action alleges the Victorian government's
mishandling of the hotel quarantine program led to the second wave
of infections and subsequent lockdowns.
"In terms of proven negligence, I think it's going to be pretty
straightforward, I'm just going to rely on their own doctors and
epidemiologists," Carbone said. The lead plaintiff is Jordan
Roberts, a 21-year-old who lost work at a Tullamarine warehouse in
August after stage four lockdowns were imposed.
The Sydney-based law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
launched a class action against the state government in August on
similar grounds, representing Melbourne businesses closed or had
their income seriously damaged following the state's second wave.
A Mornington Peninsula cafe owner and Liberal party member Michelle
Loielo, has also mounted a legal challenge against the Victoria
government's coronavirus curfew, arguing it is putting her small
business at risk.
The premier, Daniel Andrews, said on Sept. 14 he "simply can't be
drawn on those sorts of matters" when asked about the class
actions. It would be inappropriate for him to comment, he said.
From midnight on Sept. 14 regional Victoria was set to progress to
the third step in the state's recovery roadmap, as Melbourne met
the threshold to move to step two.
Sept. 14 numbers moved the seven-day average to 49.6. As it is now
below 5o average daily cases, the city meets the threshold required
to move to the second step of reopening at the end of the month.
But Andrews confirmed the 28 September date would not be moved
forward.
"The fact that we are in the 30 to 50 band should be a point of
pride, absolutely. But we are making an assessment . . . about
being in the [band] not just for a day, but for a decent period,
for a significant period, then we'll be able to make that call,"
the Labor leader said.
Sept. 14 marked the first time in months Victoria has dropped below
1,000 active cases.
As of midnight on Sept. 14, regional Victoria will begin to open
up. Groups of up to 10 people can meet outside, hospitality venues
will be allowed some dine-in service and the staggered return of
students to classrooms will begin for term four.
This easing of restriction has necessitated the tightening of the
"ring of steel" around Melbourne, with long lines of cars
stretching back from key checkpoints around the city.
Victoria police announced on Sept. 14 increased penalties for
unlawfully leaving Melbourne.
"Checkpoints . . . will be permanent. They're talking about a high
percentage of cars that will be stopped. It's almost certain that
if you think you're going to break these rules, a) you'll be in a
queue for a fair while, and b) you will get asked to demonstrate
why you're travelling to regional Victoria," Andrews said.
Andrews announced that from Sept. 15 elective surgeries in regional
hospitals would return to 75% capacity and Melbourne hospital would
meet this target on 28 September -- signalling the easing of
pressure on the Victorian hospital system.
The health minister, Jenny Mikakos, said hospitals would slowly
build their capacity, returning to 100% when the state moved to the
last step of the roadmap, notionally on 23 November.
"This timetable replicates the road map and it's been developed in
consultation with our public health experts," she said. "We want to
make sure that there's the capacity there to respond to outbreaks,
whether it's in particular aged care outbreak or an outbreak in the
hospital itself or other significant outbreaks in the community."
Outpatient and dental appointments would also be increasing
capacity in the coming weeks and return to treating non-urgent
patients.
The premier flagged that there may be funding for a surgery "blitz"
in the future to help work through the backlog of elective
procedures.
Victoria police were involved in a number of controversial
incidents over the weekend, including a mentally ill man who
appeared to have his head stomped on by an officer while being
arrested. Earlier this month it was alleged there was a "violent
assault" of an Indigenous man who was left with a broken arm after
police spear-tackled him off his bike as he rode to work.
The police revealed on Sept. 13 that new officer training on how to
deal with people suffering mental health crises had been delayed
due to bushfires and Covid-19. The premier said the police force
was aiming to restart these programs as soon as possible.
"No one takes any joy in cancelling those sorts of programs," he
said. "I would think that the mere fact that the program training
was scheduled and funded by the government, gives you a sense that
there's an acknowledgment in Victoria police . . . that having the
best understanding of how people who are in absolute crisis will
perhaps act [is important]."
Andrews acknowledged that not every police incident in recent days
was due to citizens not cooperating with police or providing their
details and that matters of inappropriate use of force should be
fully investigated.
"I don't think there are many leaders in this country who have
acknowledged the abject failures in our mental health system more
clearly and more impactfully than I have than the government I
lead. A royal commission that's on at the moment will give us the
answers we need and a massive reform agenda." [GN]
NEW MOOSEJAW: Revitch Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH REVITCH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW
MOOSEJAW, LLC and NAVISTONE, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06827-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 28, 2021, for
an order:
1. appointing himself as the class representative;
2. appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel; and
3. certifying this class and/or subclass:
-- the "Class":
"all California residents who visited Moosejaw.com from
August 11, 2016 to April 2, 2020, and whose address
appears on the Computech List"; and
-- the "2017 Subclass":
"all California residents who visited Moosejaw.com in
2017 and whose address appears on the Computech List".
New Moosejaw LLC designs, manufactures, and distributes apparels.
NaviStone provides software solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/391TYKo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
fklorczyk@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
NORTHPORT-EAST NORTHPORT SCHOOL: District Sued for Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Leigh, writing for Eyewitness News ABC7, reports that a
Long Island middle school that's battled concerns about toxic
chemicals on its campus for decades is now facing a class action
lawsuit alleging the Northport-East Northport School District
failed to do enough to protect its students from contaminants at
Northport Middle School.
"We hope that the District will be forced to take responsibility
for the hazardous conditions that persisted for years at the middle
school and for the wholly preventable injuries the delay in action
caused. We want all students whose health was affected to be
compensated and for everyone to have access to free medical testing
to monitor and detect any conditions they may develop later in life
as a result of these pollutants," said Paul J. Napoli, the attorney
representing the plaintiffs.
The claim filed in Suffolk County Supreme Court on September 3, by
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, accuses the district of negligence for
failing to promptly address toxic chemicals such as Chlordane,
Mercury, Carbon Monoxide, Benzene and other volatile organic
compounds detected on campus and for refusing to allow students who
believed they had been sickened by toxins at the school to transfer
to another middle school within the district.
Tara Mackey is a parent and one of the plaintiffs in the case who
alleges her daughter began experiencing migraines and was also
diagnosed with high levels of carbon monoxide in her blood while
attending NMS.
"All that matters to me is my children and I will never have that
piece of mind back. I just want to move forward and make sure that
hopefully this doesn't happen again and get some sort of peace,
closure and protection for all of us," Mackey said indicating she
hopes the lawsuit leads to the creation of a medical monitoring
program and more stringent oversight by state and local governments
of environmental conditions in schools.
Superintendent Robert Banzer acknowledged the lawsuit in a
statement and indicated it was under review by district lawyers.
[GN]
NOVA MUD: Misclassifies Mud Engineers, Oldham Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES OLDHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVA MUD, INC., RUSCO OPERATING,
LLC, and RigUp, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01166 (D. New
Mex., November 9, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure
to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class and collective
action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current
and former mud engineers who worked for the Defendants on a day
rate and/or hourly basis and who were misclassified by the
Defendants as independent contractors. The Plaintiff was jointly
employed by the Defendants from on or about February 2019 to
December 2019.
The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated mud
engineers worked in excess of 40 hours per seven-day workweek for
the Defendants. The Defendants, however, failed to pay them one and
one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hour they worked
over 40 in each and every seven-day workweek. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which
accurately show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and other
mud engineers.
Nova Mud, Inc. is an oilfield services company.
RigUp, Inc. is a staffing company which operates software
accessible by Web browser or smartphone to connect workers with job
opportunities in the oil and gas industry.
RigUp is the sole managing member of RUSCO Operating LLC, which is
the entity listed on the Plaintiff and similarly situated mud
engineers' paystubs/payment receipts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Taneska Jones, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
tjones@eeoc.net
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Civil Procedure Professor Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that employment lawyers should consider retooling
class action settlement agreements to make sure that questions
about incentive payments for lead plaintiffs don't blow up the
whole deal in light of a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling, attorneys
say.
Incentive payments compensate named plaintiffs for the time and
stress of litigating on behalf of others. The Eleventh Circuit's
Sept. 17 panel decision in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions LLC questioned
whether the named plaintiffs could consider OK'ing a classwide
settlement out of self-interest, rather than doing what's good for
class members, because of the payments.
"On the one hand, incentive payments are important if we want
people to be willing to serve as class representatives," Howard
Erichson, a civil procedure professor at Fordham University School
of Law, told Law360. "On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit is
right that when class representatives are given a bonus for going
along with a settlement, then that puts them in a conflicted
position vis-a-vis the class." [GN]
ONDECK CAPITAL: Board Faces Lawsuit Over Fire Sale to Enova
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that OnDeck
Capital Inc.'s board was hit with a Delaware lawsuit blasting its
plans to let Enova International buy the online lender as part of a
$90 million "fire sale" at "a remarkably terrible time."
The board breached its duties in signing off on the purchase while
the company's price is at "historic lows," instead of buckling down
to "endure" the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the Chancery Court
complaint.
"On Deck has the cash on hand and has renegotiated agreements with
lenders that it could remain a standalone entity," the suit says.
"Yet as a result of the frantic and unreasonable timing of the
sale, the consideration offered for On Deck is woefully
inadequate."
The shareholder suit accuses OnDeck's board of caving to pressure
tactics by activist investor Voce Capital LLC, which waged a
"withhold-the-vote campaign" against its members and threatened a
proxy contest after they rebuffed a proposal aimed at "significant
cost reductions and a culling of strategic priorities."
"The pandemic disrupted Voce's plans for the company, and a fire
sale became its only means to recoup its investment," the suit
says. "The very public dispute turned into a desperate push for a
sale -- with the non-insider stockholders suffering as a result."
The deal to sell OnDeck "at a fraction of its intrinsic value, even
a fraction of its book value," would give its directors "exorbitant
personal compensation," including "severance packages, accelerated
stock options, performance awards," and "golden parachutes,"
according to the proposed class action.
Some board members would also allegedly get jobs at Enova, in which
OnDeck's top institutional investors -- Dimensional Fund Advisors
LP, BlackRock Inc., and Renaissance Technologies LLC -- also hold
large stakes.
Because they stand on both sides of the deal, those firmswill come
out on top even if it rips off OnDeck, according to the complaint,
which doesn't name them as defendants.
Moreover, "for good measure," the transaction will allegedly
include "restrictive and preclusive deal protection devices" that
"impede the company's ability to obtain a better offer," including
a termination fee and a "no solicitation" provision.
"The current macro environment makes it a particularly precarious
time to sell," the suit says, "and this all but ensures no better
offer will be forthcoming."
Meanwhile, regulatory filings seeking shareholder approval omit
"critical" information, including details about the circumstances
under which OnDeck's financial projections were prepared, according
to the complaint.
The suit was filed Sept. 4.
Cause of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty.
Relief: An injunction, damages, costs, and fees.
Potential Class Size: The holders of 77 million outstanding OnDeck
shares.
Response: An OnDeck spokesman said the company doesn't comment on
active litigation.
Attorneys: The plaintiff is represented by Cooch & Taylor PA and
Monteverde & Associates PC.
The case is Doaty v. Breslow, Del. Ch., No. 2020-0763, complaint
filed 9/4/20. [GN]
PRESCOTT MOORE: Schmid Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINE SCHMID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRESCOTT MOORE, LLC d/b/a PREMIUM MEDS, a delaware
limited liability Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-07959 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
12, 2020) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent numerous
telemarketing text messages to her cellular telephone number ending
in 3327.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
The Defendant is cannabis delivery service. To promote its
services, the Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PROASSURANCE CORP: Continues to Defend Alabama Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
ProAssurance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its
false and misleading statements it made regarding its Specialty
Property and Casualty segment.
In June 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the Northern District of Alabama, alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to allegedly false and
misleading statements the Company made regarding its Specialty
Property and Casualty segment.
The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding
the ultimate outcome of the matter.
ProAssurance Corporation is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama,
and through its subsidiaries provides professional liability
insurance products primarily to physicians, other healthcare
providers, and healthcare facilities in the United States. It also
writes medical technology and life sciences product liability,
legal professional liability business, as well as workers'
compensation through its Eastern subsidiary. The company markets
its products through both specialized independent agents and direct
marketing. For the first nine months of 2019, ProAssurance reported
net earned premiums of $633.1 million and net income of $60.4
million. As of September 30, 2019, shareholders' equity was $1.6
billion.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Clemmons Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILDRED CLEMMONS, ROBERT
MACK, NOREEN CLARK, and JERRY MOORE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03713-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on January 4, 2021 for an order:
1. certifying the following Classes:
California Class:
"California residents who purchased a new Gear S from
Samsung, a Carrier, or a Retailer, and a data plan from a
Carrier. (Represented by Plaintiffs Clark and Moore)";
New York Class:
"New York residents who purchased a new Gear S from
Samsung, a Carrier, or a Retailer, and a data plan from a
Carrier. (Represented by Plaintiff Mack); and
Pennsylvania Class:
"Pennsylvania residents who purchased a new Gear S from
Samsung, a Carrier, or a Retailer, and a data plan from a
Carrier. (Represented by Plaintiff Clemmons)";
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the
Classes; and
3. appointing Lite DePalma Greenberg LLP and Handley Farah
and Andersen PLLC as Class Counsel.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products.
The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones,
storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches,
and computer products. Samsung Electronics America serves customers
worldwide.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
4, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pAgGiq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Jeremy Nash, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
jnash@litedepalma.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
Rebecca Change, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 559-2433
Facsimile: (844) 300-1952
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
rchang@hfajustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Muscato, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036-6522
SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES: Simon Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL SIMON, and other
similarly situated individuals v. SELENIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a
Selenis Construction ENGINEERING LLC d/b/a Selenis Construction,
UWE CERRON, and VALERIO CERRON,, Case No. 1:20-cv-21901-MGC (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally
certifying this case as a representative action and permitting
notification to:
"all similarly situated individuals of the pendency of this
action, and of their statutory right to opt-in to this action
and to become a party to such action."
The Plaintiff says that all current and former employees, who are,
were or have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being
properly compensated at a rate of time and a half, or have not been
paid the statutorily mandated minimum wage, and employed by the
Defendants within the three year period prior to the filing of this
lawsuit, should be provided notification of the pendency of this
action and of their right to opt-into this action should they file
a notice of consent with the clerk of this court.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
4, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3pvJB7r at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
SQUARE A Construction: Giron Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PABLO GIRON, Plaintiff v. SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION, INC., ANGEL
ROMO, and ARNULFO SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00626
(W.D.N.C., November 9, 2020) is a class and collective action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former workers against the
Defendants to challenge their alleged systemic and unlawful
employment policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 23, 2016 to
September 22, 2019 as a truck driver.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was improperly misclassified by the
Defendant as an independent contractor and paid via Form 1099
throughout his employment with the Defendants. Although he worked
between 65 and 80 hours per week, the Plaintiff was only paid
straight time and not time-and-one-half for all overtime worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
Because the Plaintiff consistently and verbally complained about
the Defendants' misclassification and the lack of proper overtime
pay periodically, he was terminated by the Defendants via text
message on December 16, 2019.
Square A Construction, Inc. is a residential and light commercial
masonry company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura L. Noble, Esq.
141 Providence Road, Suite 210
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Tel: (919) 251-6008
Fax: (919) 869-2079
E-mail: lnoble@thenoblelaw.com
STARBUCKS: Again Seeks Win in Slave Labor Class Suit in L.A. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that defendants
in a class action that alleges they use chocolate harvested by a
slave trade are again looking for victory in Los Angeles federal
court.
Mars Wrigley, Starbucks and Quaker Oats filed their latest round of
motions to dismiss on Sept. 4 in a lawsuit that has already been
rejected once by Judge Cormac Carney.
On July 29, Carney granted previous motions to dismiss but allowed
class action lawyers 14 days to attempt to fix their problems with
an amended complaint.
They tried but failed, according to the defendants.
"Plaintiff continues to improperly refer to the labor issues that
generally plague the cocoa industry and West Africa region, but
offers no facts specific as to Starbucks," the company's lawyers
wrote.
"Unable to explain why the cocoa farm audits conducted through a
third party are a 'sham,' Plaintiff deleted the allegations and
replaced them with a new conclusory statement, 'these farm audits
and verifications are unreliable.'
"Lacking specific information as to Starbucks and asserting that
only 20% of cocoa grown in the region is traceable, Plaintiff's
case is based on the possibility that Starbucks might have sourced
its cocoa for the Hot Cocoa Mix from forced or child labor."
Lori Myers' lawsuit says the companies put labels on their products
that would lead customers to believing the chocolate is produced
ethically despite a history of child and slave labor and
deforestation in the harvesting of cocoa in West Africa.
Judge Carney ruled against all of her arguments and gave her 14
days to amend her complaint. As to allegations regarding Starbucks'
COCOA certification program, he wrote:
"Plaintiff identifies only one specific problem with the COCOA
program: it 'consists solely of mandating verification
organizations to audit farms' and these verification organizations
are 'trained and audited by another global organization, SCS Global
Services, and not by Starbucks itself.'
"The Court fails to understand why Starbucks's use of third parties
makes the COCOA program a sham. Plaintiff then falls back on
generalized allegations about industry-wide problems and attempts
to shift the burden to Starbucks to substantiate the success of the
COCOA program."
The complaint also took issue with the Mars relying on the
Rainforest Alliance to help it find cocoa harvested ethically. On
Dove dark chocolate bars, Mars puts "We buy cocoa from Rainforest
Alliance Certified farms, traceable from the farms into our
factory."
"Mars' packaging simply does not make any claims about the labor
practices of its suppliers or the scope of the Rainforest Alliance
program," Carney wrote.
Myers is represented by Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman in Los
Angeles and Harris Hoffman and Zeldes in San Diego. [GN]
STEAK N SHAKE: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Berry Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMERA BERRY and KIMBERLY WALL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. STEAK N SHAKE INC., an
Indiana corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02932-JMS-MPB
(S.D. Ind., November 9, 2020) bring this collective action
complaint against the Defendant for its alleged intentional and
willful violations of the wage and hour provisions under Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as servers at
its Alpharetta, Georgia restaurant location, assert that they and
other similarly situated tipped employees were required by the
Defendant to perform work in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Defendant, however, failed to compensate them at a rate not less
than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for work
performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has a common plan, policy
and practice of compensating the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated tipped employees under a tip-credit compensation program.
But the Defendant failed to comply and adhere to such plan because
the Defendant employs a scheme to avoid its obligation to
supplement the Plaintiffs' pay by intentionally altering the
Plaintiffs' "earned tips" to show that they made at least $7.25 per
hour when combined with their tip-credit rate of pay. As a result,
the Plaintiffs were compensated less than the required minimum.
Steak n Shake Inc. owns and operates Steak n' Shake restaurants
throughout the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
TIKTOK INC: Wiliams BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled S.W., a Minor, through her Guardian, JASON
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. TIKTOK, INC. and BYTEDANCE INC., Case No.
2020-CH-5839, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for the
County of Cook to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on November 12, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06737 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged collection and/or
storage of biometric identifiers and biometric information in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
TikTok, Inc. is a company that operates as a free service and
social media application for creating and sharing short mobile
videos, headquartered in Culver City, California.
ByteDance Inc. is a multinational internet technology company
headquartered in Beijing, China. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
Curtis S. Kowalk, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
E-mail: aweibell@wsgr.com
ckowalk@wsgr.com
- and –
Victor Jih, Esq.
Ryan S. Benyamin, Esq.
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
Telephone: (323) 210-2900
E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com
rbenyamin@wsgr.com
TILE SHOP: January 8, 2021 Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC. LITIGATION
Consol. C.A. No. 2019-0892-SG
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS AND
DERIVATIVE ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
This notice is for (1) all record and beneficial holders of Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc. ("Tile Shop" or the "Company") common stock as
of October 18, 2019 (the "Settlement Class") and (2) all holders of
Tile Shop common stock as of June 30, 2020 ("Current
Stockholders").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class and Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing, and
Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.TileShopStockholderLitigation.com.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS AND DERIVATIVE ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Delaware Court
of Chancery (the "Court"), that the above-captioned class and
derivative action (the "Action") is pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of
themselves and the Settlement Class and derivatively on behalf of
the Nominal Defendant Tile Shop, have reached a proposed settlement
of the Action for $12 million in cash and certain non-monetary
benefits as described in the Notice (the "Settlement"). If
approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 12,
2020 at 1:30 p.m., before Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III, either
in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Sussex
County Courthouse, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947, or by
telephone or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to
determine, among other things: (i) whether the Action may be
permanently maintained as a non-opt out class action and whether
the Settlement Class should be certified permanently, for purposes
of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a),
23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2); (ii) whether Plaintiffs may be permanently
designated as representatives for the Settlement Class and Lead
Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiffs
and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the
Settlement Class in the Action; (iii) whether the proposed
Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated August 7, 2020 (the "Stipulation")
is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class and the
Company, and should be approved by the Court; (iv) whether a
Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice
against Defendants; (v) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of
the Net Cash Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should
therefore be approved; (vi) whether the application by Lead Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation
expenses, and incentive awards for Plaintiffs should be approved;
and (vii) to consider any other matters that may properly be
brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
The ongoing COVID-19 health emergency is a fluid situation that
creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the
Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise
allow Class Members and Current Stockholders to appear at the
hearing by phone or video, without further written notice to Class
Members or Current Stockholders. In order to determine whether the
date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether
Class Members and Current Stockholders must or may participate by
phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket
and the Settlement website, www.TileShopStockholderLitigation.com,
before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any
updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to
the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or
telephonic or video appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the Settlement website, www.TileShopStockholderLitigation.com.
Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members and Current
Stockholders to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone
or video conference, the information needed to access the
conference will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.TileShopStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class or a Current
Stockholder, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Cash
Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim
Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator at: Tile Shop Stockholder Litigation, c/o JND
Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91376, Seattle, WA 98111,
1-877-313-0184, info@TileShopStockholderLitigation.com. Copies of
the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, www.TileShopStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than January 8, 2021. If you are
a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
October 2, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead
Counsel.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Tile Shop Stockholder Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91376
Seattle, WA 98111
1-877-313-0184
info@ TileShopStockholderLitigation.com
www.TileShopStockholderLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN]
UBER: 9th Cir. Upholds Lower Ct. Ruling in Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Lewis, Esq. -- jlewis@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a Ninth Circuit panel
denied a mandamus petition attempting to overturn a district court
order requiring arbitration of a putative class action brought by
an Uber driver. The action claimed that Uber failed to protect
drivers' and riders' personal information and botched a data
security breach by online hackers.
The district court ultimately concluded that William Grice, an
Alabama based Uber driver who never crosses state lines, did not
qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) Sec. 1 exemption.
As a reminder, Section 1 of the FAA exempts "contracts of
employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" -- the Section's
"residual clause." 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (Emphasis added). This case
concerned the scope of that exception as applied to a ride-sharing
service.
The Ninth Circuit's Analysis
The Ninth Circuit's opinion evaluated whether the district court's
decision requiring arbitration was "clearly erroneous as a matter
of law," citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F. 2d 650, 654-55
(9th Cir. 1977). It was not. Grice v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No.
20-70780 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2020).
The appellate opinion began with an analysis of existing case law
involving the residual clause. While neither the nature of the item
transported in commerce nor the crossing of state lines was
determinative, according to the panel, it was instead the nature of
the business involved. But there were limits. "[F]urniture
salespeople or food delivery drivers generally are not classified
as 'transportation workers' within the meaning of § 1 even when
they occasionally travel interstate to deliver their products to
out-of-state customers.", citing Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc.,
2020 WL 4463062 at *2 (7th Cir. 2020). We covered the Wallace
decision in our blog article of Aug. 7, 2020.
Armed with existing decisions, the panel turned to the nature of
the ride-share industry. Considering Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., No.
20-CV-01938-VC, 2020 WL 1684151 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2020), the
opinion noted, "Even though 'some drivers . . . regularly transport
passengers across state lines, the company is in the general
business of giving people rides, not the particular business of
offering interstate transportation of passengers."" So, Lyft was
found to be "in essence, a technologically advanced taxicab company
. . . ." Id.
Responding to Grice's arguments, the panel noted that while Uber
had agreements with the Huntsville and Birmingham airports to allow
Uber drivers like Grice to collect arriving passengers, he did not
argue that passengers contracted with the airlines to retain him or
that Grice provided any between-airport transport to assist
passengers' interstate travel. Instead, Grice argued that the
residual clause applied to those who operated in the flow of
interstate commerce. But, agreeing with the Wallace case analysis,
the panel stated:
"this 'interpretation would sweep in numerous categories of workers
whose occupations have nothing to do with interstate transport --
for example, dry cleaners who deliver pressed shirts manufactured
in Taiwan and ice cream truck drivers selling treats made with milk
from an out-of-state dairy."" 2020 WL 4463062, at *3.
The residual exemption is about "what the worker does," not only
"where the goods [or people] have been." Id. Recoiling from such a
broad-based interpretation, the panel recognized "[t]oday almost
every object we buy has some component that comes from
out-of-state. Grice's proposed reading of § 1 would allow the
exception to swallow the rule . . . ."
Because no controlling precedent foreclosed the district court's
ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel was not convinced that the lower
court erred. Yet, the battle over the status of rideshare drivers
continues. The Capriole v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No.
20-16030, is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit and raises
FAA exemption issues.
Bottom Line:
The Ninth Circuit rejected a construction of the FAA exemption for
a ride-share driver that would "swallow the rule". [GN]
UBER: Offer Drivers New Contract w/ Clause Preventing Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wilson, writing for HRReporter, reports that Uber is asking
drivers in Toronto to sign a contract stating they cannot take part
in a $400-million lawsuit that seeks to recognize them as employees
rather than independent contractors, according to the law firm
representing the drivers.
"What the Uber drivers have been getting the past number of days is
a message on their Uber app saying, 'Unless you accept this
contract, you're locked out of the app.' So unless you click
accept, you cannot continue working for Uber," says Lior Samfiru,
partner at Samfiru-Tumarkin.
"This contract is an amendment to the arbitration obligation that
they have previously and one of the things it does is it says that,
'If you accept this, and by the way you don't have a choice, you
cannot participate in any class action. But we're going to be nice
-- if within 30 days you don't like this, you can opt out of the
arbitration as long as you send us this email.'"
This is in response to a June loss in a Supreme Court case, he
says, covered in the latest issue of Canadian HR Reporter.
The service agreements for Uber drivers specify that the parties
are not in an employment relationship and they are governed by the
laws of the Netherlands.
"Uber is effectively trying to bluff their workers, offering them a
contract with a clause preventing class-action suits, even [though]
that clause would likely be ruled illegal in a [Canadian] court.
Uber's [management is] clearly hoping that drivers are bamboozled
by the contract and won't chance it," tweeted Marshall Auerback, a
fellow of Economists for Peace and Security at the Levy Economics
Institute at Bard College in New York.
"Not content with just exploiting their workers, they are doing
their utmost to prevent them from adopting legal remedies."
Class action continues
The contract is an eight-page document and drivers may not
thoroughly read it and may think that they can continue working for
Uber without knowing they are losing their right to participate in
a class action, says Samfiru.
"I'm trying to get the word out to Uber drivers that once you sign
-- I understand that people will accept because they have to
continue working -- you need to opt out."
Samfiru also says he's going to talk to the judges in the class
action to see if what Uber is doing is legal.
"They're trying to circumvent both the Supreme Court of Canada's
decision as well as our class-action laws of this province," he
says, adding that his firm will continue with the class action.
In November last year, the presidents of both the Ontario
Federation of Labour (OFL) and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers
(CUPW) threw their support behind Uber drivers and Foodora drivers
who were fighting for the right to unionize to improve their
working conditions.
And in January, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Union
Canada applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to unionize
more than 300 Uber Black limousine and SUV drivers in Toronto.
[GN]
VALRHONA INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
EVELINA CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. VALRHONA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09540-PGG
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's Website, https://www.valrhona-chocolate.com, is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted
Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen
E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the Websites
they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals
with disabilities.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant offers the commercial Website,
https://www.valrhona-chocolate.com/, to the public. The website
offers features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services offered by the Defendant and which the Defendant
ensures delivery of such goods throughout the United States
including New York State.[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: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that Florida and an
Ohio plaintiff have filed a class action against Warner Music Group
Corp., the record label for artists such as Pitbull, Coldplay and
the Rolling Stones, for allegedly failing to safeguard personally
identifiable information and by not providing adequate notice to
customers after a cybersecurity breach. [GN]
WEST AUSTRALIAN GOV'T: Shine Attys. File Indigenous Workers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that a class action has been
launched against the West Australian government in the hope of
recovering wages stolen from Indigenous workers, amid warnings many
elderly complainants may not live to see the matter resolved.
Shine Lawyers is lodging the class action in the federal court on
Oct. 19 on behalf of workers whose wages were taken as part of a
labour scheme operated under the Native Administration Act 1936 and
Native Welfare Act 1963.
Up to 10,000 workers are expected to be directly eligible, as well
as a "substantial" number of their descendants, the firm's senior
associate Tristan Gaven said.
The WA government has indicated it will look to settle the matter
outside court, a position Gaven said was encouraging, given the age
of those affected.
"That has always been one of our key concerns," he said.
"These group members are passing away at an alarming rate --
anecdotally I heard that in Queensland, it was one group member a
week. Absolutely the sooner, the better."
Queensland's government last year settled a class action relating
to similar unpaid entitlements for $190m after a three-year
battle.
More than 30,000 claimants ultimately came forward, well above the
12,000 initially expected.
Advertisement
Gaven declined to estimate the potential compensation bill for WA's
government, saying the matter was incredibly complicated.
"If the Queensland case is any kind of indication, it's going to
involve poring over decades-old archive material. It's incomplete
as well, so that is going to be a huge challenge," he said.
"Even identifying and locating group members can be incredibly
challenging."
Class action group member Ron Harrington-Smith was four when he was
forcibly taken from his mother to work at the Mount Margaret
mission in the north-eastern Goldfields region.
His duties included chopping and carting wood to missionaries in
their houses, marshalling livestock and cleaning soiled toilet
pans.
"All of this was barefoot and in squalid conditions,"
Harrington-Smith said.
"It's hard to imagine that we endured all this suffering. It is
unfair and appalling, and they have to be found guilty of the facts
and pay us back the stolen wages which are owed."
Shine's head of class actions, Jan Saddler, said the working
conditions were "akin to slavery".
Anyone subject to the policy will be included in the "opt-out"
class action, including descendants of deceased workers and their
estates.
The state's Aboriginal affairs minister, Ben Wyatt, whose paternal
grandmother was among the many Indigenous people subjected to the
discriminatory policy, said the government was considering the
grounds of the compensation claims.
"This includes the allocation of the necessary resources and the
sourcing of the required materials to allow the state to respond to
the issues raised," a spokeswoman said
"The government will look to achieve a mediated outcome of any
claims made in respect to the stolen wages issues, with an
acknowledgement of the impact that historical government policies
related to income control have had on Aboriginal people and their
families over many years." [GN]
WHITE CASTLE: Loses Judgment on Pleadings in Cothron BIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATRINA COTHRON, Individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM,
INC. D/B/A WHITE CASTLE, Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 00382 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied White
Castle's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
Plaintiff Cothron began working for White Castle in 2004 and is
still employed by the restaurant-chain as a manager. Roughly three
years after Ms. Cothron was hired, White Castle introduced a
fingerprint-based computer system that required Ms. Cothron, as a
condition of continued employment, to scan and register her
fingerprint in order "to access the computer as a manager and
access her paystubs as an hourly employee.
According to Ms. Cothron, White Castle's system involved
transferring the fingerprints to two third-party vendors -- Cross
Match and Digital Persona -- as well as storing the fingerprints at
other separately owned and operated data-storage facilities.
Perhaps unsurprisingly -- given that the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") did not exist yet -- White Castle
did not receive a written release from Ms. Cothron to collect her
fingerprints or to transfer them to third parties before
implementing the system.
When the Illinois legislature enacted BIPA in mid-2008, the legal
landscape changed but White Castle's practices did not -- at least
not for roughly 10 years. White Castle continued to use its
fingerprint system in the years following BIPA's passage and
continued to disseminate that data to the same third parties. It
was not until October 2018 that White Castle provided Ms. Cothron
with the required disclosures or a consent form.
On Dec. 6, 2018, Ms. Cothron filed her class action complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the case was
subsequently removed to the Illinois District Court by Cross Match
Technologies, Inc. (since dismissed from the case). After the
Court denied White Castle's motion to dismiss Ms. Cothron's second
amended complaint, White Castle filed an answer. In the answer,
White Castle raised a statute of limitations defense and
subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that Ms. Cothron's
claims accrued in 2008 and are therefore barred by the statute of
limitations.
Ms. Cothron provides two arguments for rejecting White Castle's
statute of limitations defense: first, that White Castle waived its
statute of limitations defense by not asserting it in its
previously filed motion to dismiss; and second, that her claims are
timely.
Judge Tharp holds that in making her waiver argument, Ms. Cothron
ignores the basic framework provided by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as well as the language of Rule 12(g)(2), on which she
relies. The Rules provide that a defendant may respond to a
complaint by filing a responsive pleading or, alternatively, by
filing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b). Contrary to Ms.
Cothron's argument, White Castle did not waive its right to assert
a statute of limitations defense in a motion for judgment on the
pleadings; Rule 12(g)(2) expressly states that its limitation on
further motions is applicable "except as provided in Rule
12(h)(2)." And Rule 12(h)(2)(B), in turn, expressly provides that
failure to state a claim may be raised "by a motion under Rule
12(c)." Far from having waived its statute of limitations defense,
White Castle has raised the affirmative defense at precisely the
procedural posture envisioned by the Rules. Ms. Cothron's argument
to the contrary is entirely off-base.
Ms. Cothron's second argument for denying the motion -- that,
considered on the merits, White Castle's statute of limitations
defense fails -- is substantially stronger; indeed, the Judge
concludes that it is correct. At least a portion of Ms. Cothron's
claims did not accrue until 2018 and would therefore be timely
under any statute of limitations. White Castle rejects both
theories, arguing instead that the complaint describes a single
violation of Section 15(b) and a single violation of Section 15(d),
both of which occurred and accrued in 2008, during the first
post-BIPA finger-scan that she alleges violated BIPA.
The Judge finds that the continuing violation doctrine does not
apply to BIPA violations -- at least not to those at issue -- and,
as a result, Ms. Cothron's right to sue for those violations
accrued when the violations occurred. And, each time that White
Castle disclosed Ms. Cothron's biometric information to a third
party without consent, it violated Section 15(d).
Judge Tharp concludes that Ms. Cothron has alleged multiple timely
violations of both Section 15(b) and Section 15(d). According to
BIPA Section 20, she can recover for each violation. The number of
those timely violations will be resolved at a future point when, in
accordance with White Castle's request, further briefing is devoted
to the issue of the applicable statute of limitations. For the
present, however, it is clear that at least some of her claims
survive under the reading of the statute and, therefore, White
Castle's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3t4kt2p from
Leagle.com.
WOLVERINE WORLD: Consolidated Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Idividual lawsuits and three putative class action lawsuits have
been filed against the Company that raise a variety of claims,
including claims related to property, remediation, and human health
effects.
The three putative class action lawsuits were subsequently refiled
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan as
a single consolidated putative class action lawsuit. 3M Company has
been named as a co-defendant in the individual lawsuits and
consolidated putative class action lawsuit.
In addition, the current owner of a former landfill and gravel
mining operation sued the Company seeking damages and cost recovery
for property damage allegedly caused by the Company's disposal of
tannery waste containing PFAS (this suit collectively with the
individual lawsuits and putative class action, the "Litigation
Matters").
Assessing potential liability with respect to the Litigation
Matters at this time is difficult. The Litigation Matters are in
various stages of discovery and related motions.
In addition, there is minimal direct and relevant precedent for
these types of claims related to per-and-poly-fluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), and the science regarding the human health
effects of PFAS exposure in the environment remains inconclusive
and inconsistent, thereby creating additional uncertainties.
Wolverine said, "Due to these factors, combined with the
complexities and uncertainties of litigation, the Company is unable
to conclude that adverse verdicts resulting from the Litigation
Matters are probable, and therefore no amounts are currently
reserved for these claims. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself against these claims."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. manufactures and markets branded
footwear and performance leathers. The Company's products include
shoes, slippers, occupational and safety footwear, and performance
outdoor footwear, among others. The company is based in Rockford,
Michigan.
WORLD WIDE CONSULTING: Final Class Action Certification Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY DAVIS, et al. v.
WORLD WIDE CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00771-MRB (S.D. Ohio), Plaintiffs Jeffrey Davis and Tiffany
Carroll and Defendant Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc. ask the
Court for an order:
1. finally certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
sole purposes of settlement, including the Sub-Classes;
2. finally certifying a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) for sole purposes of settlement;
3. finally approving the Agreement and its terms;
4. approving the payments to Class Members;
5. approving the incentive payments to Named Plaintiffs;
6. approving the payment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and
7. approving the payment of Archer Systems, LLC's costs as
set forth in the Agreement;
A copy of the joint motion for final certification of a class
action and collective action, dated Nov. 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f3FYka at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David C. Harman, Esq.
Janet G. Abaray, Esq.
David C. Harman, Esq.
BURG SIMPSON
ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE P.C.
201 E. 5th St., Suite 1340
Cincinnati, OH 45202
E-mail: jabaray@burgsimpson.com
dharman@burgsimpson.com
- and -
Matthew Miller-Novak, Esq.
BARRON, PECK, BENNIE &
SCHLEMMER, CO. LPA
3074 Madison Road
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 721-1350
Facsimile: (513) 721-2301
E-mail: mmn@bpbslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew R. Byrne, Esq.
David K. Montgomery, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
PNC Center, 26th Floor
201 E. Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 898-0050
Facsimile: (513) 898-0051
E-mail: david.montgomery@jacksonlewis.com
matthew.byrne@jacksonlewis.com
ZOOM: Faces Multidistrict Litigation Over Privacy Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers are hoping to punish Zoom for its new popularity, while the
company says as it defends itself in federal court against security
claims.
Several class actions were filed against the company as it gained
customers during the coronavirus pandemic this year and were
consolidated in a California federal court in a multidistrict
litigation proceeding.
On Sept. 14, Zoom filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.
"In an effort to capitalize on Zoom's explosive growth during the
COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs seek to hold Zoom liable on behalf of
a nationwide class under a scattershot array of loosely related
factual and legal theories, largely drawn from sensationalist news
reports," the motion says.
"Facing skyrocketing growth in use, Zoom has worked tirelessly
since the pandemic's onset to keep its services operational and
secure, while developing and deploying extensive privacy and
security enhancements to address new challenges caused by the
massive uptick in non-corporate usage."
Leading the pursuit of the allegations will be Tina Wolfson of
Ahdoot & Wolfson and Mark Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
both in California. They were appointed co-lead counsel in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in San Jose federal court.
Judge Lucy Koh granted their motions June 30 after receiving
applications from nine lawyers to serve those roles.
Lawsuits alleged negligence and violation of laws like the
California Consumer Privacy Act. They said Zoom shared the user's
personal information, including the type of device and software the
user has as well as their network carrier and location, with third
parties such as Facebook.
The lawsuits also claim Zoom misrepresented its encryption
protocols and failed to prevent unwanted users from crashing
meetings (called "Zoombombing").
But the plaintiffs don't allege they were harmed by the sharing of
any data, Zoom says, nor do they allege they ever relied upon any
specific Zoom representations about encryption.
As for Zoombombings, the company is immunized from liability by the
Communications Decency Act, it says.
"Plaintiffs acknowledge that these actors are not associated with
Zoom or its services," the motion says.
"Finally, Plaintiffs contort press articles and Zoom's Privacy
Policy to allege that Zoom engages in 'unauthorized interception
and use of video sessions, chats and transcripts,' speculating that
Zoom 'may' use this content to train 'chat-bots' -- allegations
that have no factual support in the sources cited by Plaintiffs."
[GN]
*********
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 ***