/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201130.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 239
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Moon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Nabor Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ABP PUBLIC: Misclassifies Construction Workers, Ruiz-Magana Claims
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
ACUITY BRANDS: Seeks 11th Circuit Review in PERS Securities Suit
ADVANTAGE GOLD: Faces Ba Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
AFNI INC: Faces Chisom Suit in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
ALLIED COLLECTION: Faces Ortega Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
ALLSTATE CORP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Illinois
ALLSTATE FIRE: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bloomgarden Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Turner Appeals ERISA Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss CCERF Putative Class Suit Junked
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
ALPHABET INC: Esquivel Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in NY Securities Suit Pending
AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Bruce Class Action Suit
AMERICAN WATER: Jeffries Class Action Stayed
ANAPTYSBIO INC: Securities Class Suit on Etokimab Reports Ongoing
ANDY LEE: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages for Laborers
ANTARES PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending
APPLE INC: Best Companies Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
APPLE INC: Seeks Seventh Circuit Review in Hazlitt BIPA Suit
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Suboxone Sublingual Related Suit Ongoing
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Blenkhorn Suit in Cal. State Court
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Directed to File Class Certification Bid
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Venue of Smith Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware
ATLAS LAW: Curtis Suit Wins Class Action Status
AVANGRID INC: Dismissal of PNE Energy Supply's Suit Affirmed
AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissed from Bahamas Indemnification Suit
AVENU INSIGHTS: Palmer Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
BASE MANAGEMENT: Cooper Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Cir.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Catucci Litigation Underway
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Miami Retirement Trust Suit
BBVA USA: Hill Class Suit Underway in California
BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Suit Over PPP Loan Ongoing
BERGAILA COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Zinn Claims
BIOGEN INC: Faces Menashe Suit Over 28% Drop in Share Price
BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Properly Secure Customer Data, Imhof Says
BLACKBAUD INC: Faszczewski Sues Over Data Breach
BLACKBAUD INC: Mandel Sues Over Data Breach
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Delapaz Appeals Savino Suit Ruling to 1st Cir.
BSN SPORTS LLC: Romero Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
CABOT OIL: Del. County Employees' Fund Slams Stock Price Drop
CAMPING WORLD: Final Dismissal Order Entered in IUOE Suit
CAMPING WORLD: Parties in Geis Files Joint Stipulation to Dismiss
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Online Classes Inaccessible to Deaf, Kane Says
CARNIVAL CORP: Onn Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
CB RESTAURANTS: Martin Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Still Ongoing in Illinois
CELEBRITY CRUISES: Maglana Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Merger Related Suit Pending
CHEMED CORP: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Re-set to Dec. 8
CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Lax Suit Pending
CINCINNATI CASUALTY: Midwest Insurance Suit Goes to S.D. Illinois
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Assoc. in Periodontics Suit Goes to Vermont
CITIGROUP INC: Facing City of Sunrise Firefighter's Suit
CLUB COLORS: Garcia Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Walker Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Brittain Sues Over COVID-19 Tuition Refund
COMMUNITY NURSING: Illegally Collects Biometric Info, Smith Claims
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces Chatman FDCA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CONNECTICUT: Taylor Appeals Ruling in Prisoners Suit to 2nd Cir.
CORECIVIC INC: Court Certifies Class in Immigration Detainees' Suit
CORECIVIC INC: Trial in Grae Class Suit Set for May 2021
CORELOGIC INC: Credco Faces Fernandez Suit Over Background Check
CORELOGIC INC: Feb 23 Final Approval Hearing on Feliciano Deal
CORELOGIC INC: RPS Defending Against Brown Class Suit
CRESCENT CAPITAL: Dismissal of Suits Against Alcentra Final
CUMULUS MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Pending
DECATUR, GA: Malone Appeals Civil Rights Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
DELEK US: Cypress & Kestrel Can Intervene in Becker FLSA Suit
DEPOSITORS INSURANCE: Arvans ICFA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
DESERT STATES: Koch Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
DHI GROUP: Final Judgment Approving Douglas Settlement Entered
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Piersing Takes Antitrust Suit Ruling to High Court
DONERIGHT CUSTOM: Gatlin Sues Over Unpaid OT, Race Discrimination
DONNA KARAN: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Burbon Claims
DOW CHEMICAL: Guidry Appeals E.D. La. Ruling to Fifth Circuit
DULUTH, MN: Jorgensen Sues Over Inmates' Rights
DW DIRECT INC: Appeals Ruling in Rhyan FLSA Suit to Fifth Circuit
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Non-Binding Settlement Reached in Olenik Suit
EAST VILLAGE STAFFING: Chiu Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
ECKERT SEAMANS: Melchior Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
EMERALD HOLDING: To Pay $390,000 Attorneys' Fees in Local 449 Suit
EMPANADA LADY: Cardano Sues Over Illegal Termination
ENERGY TRANSFER: Regency Merger Related Suit Ongoing
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Smith Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court
FCA US: Faces Greene Suit Over Inadequate Warning in COBRA Notices
FITBIT INC: Appeal in Calif. Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
FITBIT INC: Appeal in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Dismissed
FLOWERS FOODS: Awaits Written Order of Dismissal in Neff Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Consolidated Carr-Boulange Class Action Dismissed
FMC CORPORATION: Seeks Court OK to Appeal Order in Livent IPO Suit
FRANCHISE GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
FRANCHISE GROUP: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Suit Stayed
FRANCHISE GROUP: Dec. 18 Class Certification Hearing in Labrado
FRONTIER COMMS: Consolidated Class Suit in Connecticut Stayed
FTS USA: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review in Monroe FLSA Suit
GANNETT CO: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in Quatrone ERISA Suit
GARDENER REICHMANN: Faces Lowe FDCA Suit in C.D. California
GARRETT MOTION: Gabelli Asset Hits Share Price Drop
GC SERVICES: Chernofsky Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burkhart Class Action
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Final Approval of Skochin Settlement Pending
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Inc. Suit in Virginia Ongoing
GEO GROUP: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages for Prison Officers
GILEAD SCIENCES: Facing Jacksonville Trust Class Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds Related Suit Ongoing
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Underway
GOLD STAR: Faces Benjamin Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal in Commodities-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Corporate Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Objections Filed in Employment Related Class Suit
GUCCI AMERICA: Persaud Sues Over Analysts' Unpaid Overtime Wages
HCL AMERICA: Underpays CSRs, Gardner et al. Suit Alleges
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
HOFFMAN HUNTERS: Johnson Sues Over Improper Towing of Vehicles
HOME DEPOT 401K: Court Greenlights Class Action Status
HOUSTON ASTROS: Writ of Mandamus Filed in Ticketholders' Case
HP INC: Parziale Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
HUY FONG: Faces Valdez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
HY-VEE INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review in Greenstate Credit Suit
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE: Reisman Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
INSULET CORP: Bid for Fees, Expenses in ATRS Suit Still Pending
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces Mullen ADA Suit in W.D. Pa.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE: Aguiluz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Retirement Suit Denied
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Molded Doors
JELD-WEN HOLDING: March 16 Final Fairness Hearing on Settlement
JETSWEAT LLC: Martinez Balks at Automatic Subscription Renewal
JOGINDER FOOD: Faces Singh Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland FLSA Related Class Suit Underway
JONES FINANCIAL: Petition for Certiorari in McDonald Suit Tossed
JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Watson Suit Preliminarily Approved
JOYY INC: Faces Hershewe Suit Over 26.4% Drop in Share Price
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Interchange Fees Suit Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Suits Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Lobevero Alleges Spoofing of Metals Futures
JPMORGAN CHASE: Precious Metals Futures Suit Stayed Until May 2021
KABLE GROUP: Faces Kinateder Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Overtime
KIRKLAND'S INC: Appeals Gennock Case Ruling to Pa. Supreme Court
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Burnell Accord Appealed
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Rudsell Deal Under Appeal
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Settlement Reached in Julian Class Suit
KNIGHTS MATTRESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Jariwala Says
KRIS KLINE: Court Certifies Two Classes in Lucero-Gonzalez Suit
KROGER CO: Wilson Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid Overtime
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Choate Sues Board Vote Over Illegal Plan Amendment
LANDMARK PROPERTY SERVICES: Brill Sues Over Cancelled Lease
LAUREL, MS: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Firefighters, Johnson Says
LIBERTY LATIN: VTR Finance Facing Multiple Class Action Suits
LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing
LOS ANGELES, CA: Ray Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 9th Circuit
LUCILE SALTER: Faces Masuda Suit Over Illegal Background Check
LVNV FUNDING: Faces Allen TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
LVNV FUNDING: Valentine Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
M&T BANK: High Court Appeal Filed in Jaroslawicz Securities Suit
MACROGENICS INC: Hill Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Nix Strougo Putative Class Suit Pending
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Putative Class Suit Stayed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Recovery Claims Suit Stayed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Suit Ongoing
MANNKIND CORP: Order Denying Bid to Amend Complaint Under Appeal
MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
MDL 2981: Transfer of 11 Google Antitrust Suits to D.D.C. Sought
MEP NATIONWIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Saylor Claims
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Matousek Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MIDWEST RECOVERY: Wells Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
MIMEDX GROUP: Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Stayed Until Dec. 18
MIZUHO BANK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Laydon Securities Suit
MORNINGSIDE ACQUISITION: Faces Gonzalez Suit in NY State Court
MOSAIC CO: Cruz Suit Over Exposure of Hazardous Substances Ongoing
MOSAIC CO: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
MOUNTAIRE CORP: Appeals Order in Cuppels Suit to Del. High Court
NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Faces Fischler ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW ENTERPRISE: Faces Tesaro Shareholder's Suit in Delaware
NEW JERSEY: Tung Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 3rd Cir.
NEW YORK BAGELS: Dominguez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed from Gulino Case Ruling
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
NIAGARA FALLS, NY: Salerno Appeals W.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Circuit
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Faces Eves Suit Over 8.27% Drop in Share Price
NORTHSTAR ALARM: $686,000 Awarded to "Braver" Class Counsel
NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Underway in Maryland and New York
ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: GTx Merger Suit in New York Dismissed
ONESPAN INC: Continues to Defend Almendariz Securities Class Suit
OPEN TEXT: Bid to Dismiss Carbonite Class Suit Granted
OTELCO INC: Continues to Defend Plumley Putative Class Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Putative Class Suit Underway in Missouri
OVERSTOCK.COM: Mangrove Partners Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Appeal from Dismissal of Sgarlata Suit Ongoing
PBF HOLDING: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 27
PECK CO: Facing Multiple Suits Related to Sunworks Merger
PIZZA BAKER: Clark Seeks OK of Notice to Drivers Class
PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Borja Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PORSCHE CARS NA: Porsche Owners Hit Emissions Cheat Device
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
POWER PERFORMANCE: Misclassifies Inspectors, Johnson Suit Claims
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Glenn Suit Alleges
PUPBOX INC: Fails to Properly Secure Customer Data, Adamczak Says
PURA VIDA: Barbosa Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
PURDUE PHARMA: Pleas Could Bolster Efforts for Opioid Class Action
QUALCOMM INC: Appeal on Grant of Class Certification Order Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Class Suits Ongoing in Canada
QUALCOMM INC: Mistry Appeals Ruling in SEA Suit to 9th Cir.
RADNET INC: Faces Lancaster Suit in C.D. California
REALNETWORKS INC: Napster to Pay Claims in Next 12 Months
REATA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
REATA PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
RED ROBIN: Settlement Underway in Vigueras and Vasquez Suits
RENEW BODY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Massage Staff, Yan Claims
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Facing COVID-19 Related Putative Class Suits
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Consolidate Giuliano & RSC Suit Pending
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Facing Tonkawa Enterprises Class Suit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Giuliano Putative Class Suit Underway in Illinois
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Raqqa et al. Putative Class Suit Dismissed
SCIPLAY CORP: Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing in New York
SCIPLAY CORP: Stay in John Good Putative Class Suit Extended
SEMPRA ENERGY: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
SEMPRA ENERGY: June Trial in Aliso Canyon Leak Suit Postponed
SHANAHAN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Moore Claims
SKINCO LLC: Licea Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement in Veilleux Suit Granted Final Approval
SPECIAL COUNSEL: Bache Sues Over Attorney Advisors' Unpaid OT
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Aguilar Alleges Injury From Defective Candles
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICAL: Consolidated Hartsock Class Suit Dismissed
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Suits Over Accounting Review Ongoing
SPRING BANK: Facing Franchi Putative Class Suit in Delaware
STAAR SURGICAL: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
STAMPS.COM INC: Appeals Ruling in Karinski Suit to 9th Cir.
STARLIGHT TOURS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Tan Claims
STATE FARM: Santoro Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
STEEL PARTNERS: Sciabacucchi Class Settlement Approved
SUNFOOD CORP: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cruz Claims
SUNRUN INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCPA & CIPA Claims in Saunders
SUNWARRIOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Suit Says
SVS VISION: Misclassifies Retail Office Managers, Pieber Claims
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 30 Deadline
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov 30 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Schall Law Reminds Nov. 30 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
TASTY CAFE: Resto Staff Slams Tip Credit, Denied Overtime Pay
TOM & TOON: Tangtiwatanapaibul Appeals FLSA Suit Order to 2nd Cir.
TOTAL LIFE: Raspberry Tea Packaging Deceptive, Williams Says
TOTAL SYSTEM: Brown Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
TRANSITIONAL SERVICES: Judicial Intervention Sought in David Case
TRIHEALTH INC: Shortchanges Nurses' Wages, Fyffe Asserts
TURQUOISE HILL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
TURQUOISE HILL: Portnoy Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
UBER: Drivers Sue Company Alleging Coercive Prop 22 Advertising
UNITED AIRLINES: Moss Appeals Ruling in Employment Suit to 7th Cir
UNITED STATES: Aldred Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
UNITED STATES: Chowdhury Appeals Ruling in Rojas Suit to 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Kearney Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
UNITED STATES: Y and J Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Chandler Seeks Fee Refund Due to Strikes
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Russo Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19
URS MIDWEST: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
V R V COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
VERISK ANALYTICS: Peterson Class Action Against ISO Ongoing
VIACOMCBS INC: Lovoi Challenges Amendment on Removal of Directors
VIRTUSA CORP: Facing Austin HoldCo Merger Related Suits
WALL & ASSOCIATES: Vandermast Appeals W.D.N.Y Judgment to 2nd Cir.
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Hammett Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WATER GREMLIN: White Bear Homeowner Brings Class Action Lawsuit
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Seeks to Vacate Award in Herrington Suit
WAYNE COUNTY: Foreclosures Spark Federal Class-Action Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Interchange Litigation Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Order of Suit Dismissal Pending
WELLS FARGO: Defends Putative Class Actions Over PPP Loan
WELLS FARGO: Dismissal of 401(k) Plan Related Suit Affirmed
WELLS FARGO: Parties in Hernandez Suit Ask Court to Reopen Pact
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Caustic Soda Class Suits Underway
WESTPAC BANKING: Auto Dealers Commission Related Suit Ongoing
WESTPAC BANKING: BT Life Cash Investment Option Class Suit Ongoing
WESTPAC BANKING: Class Suit Over Consumer Credit Insurance Underway
WESTPAC BANKING: Deal Reached in Bill Swap Reference Rate Suit
WILLIAMS PLANT: McManus Sues Over Wrongful Termination
WINGO SERVICE: Vaughn Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
WIPRO LTD: Ruffing Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Unlawful Termination
WPX ENERGY: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Ongoing in Wisconsin
XEROX CORP: Bid to Dismiss Ribbe Suit Pending
YELP INC: Gruber Appeals Ruling in Civil Suit to Calif. High Court
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Gregory Class Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Evans Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: PPP Loan-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
*********
3M COMPANY: Moon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICKOLAS ALLAN MOON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03970-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 13,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Moon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Nabor Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE FELIX NABOR v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03975-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 13,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Nabor case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
ABP PUBLIC: Misclassifies Construction Workers, Ruiz-Magana Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BALTASAR RUIZ-MAGANA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, known and unknown v. ABP PUBLIC ADJUSTER CO.,
an Illinois corporation, ABP REMODELING INC., an Illinois
corporation, ABILENE BERRELES, individually, DAVID BERRELES,
individually, and JOSE PEREZ, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-06823
(N.D. Ill., November 17, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Illinois Employee Classification Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants intentionally
misclassified, and continue to misclassify him and the Class
members as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
hourly wage rates.
Mr. Ruiz-Magana was employed by the Defendants to perform labor for
them in their roofing, construction and remodeling business from
about June, 2017, to about May 14, 2019.
The Defendants operate construction businesses within the State of
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Luka, Esq.
MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
120 S. State Street, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 508-6010
E-mail: paul@mendozalaw.net
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
and Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. suits, is still
pending.
On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi, or Rosi, filed a putative
class action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its executive
officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an
alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising
materials related to ESKATA and find that the materials minimized
the risks or overstated the efficacy of the product.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019.
On September 5, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher, or
Fulcher, filed a substantially identical putative class action
complaint captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
in the same court against the same defendants.
On November 6, 2019, the court consolidated the Rosi and Fulcher
actions, or together, the Consolidated Securities Action, and
appointed Fulcher "lead plaintiff" for the putative class.
On January 24, 2020, Fulcher filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the Consolidated Securities Action, naming two additional
executive officers as defendants, extending the putative class
period to August 12, 2019, and adding allegations concerning, among
other things, alleged statements and omissions throughout the
putative class period concerning ESKATA's risks, tolerability and
effectiveness.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 17, 2020.
Fulcher filed an opposition to the defendants' motion on June 15,
2020, and the defendants filed a reply to such opposition on August
4, 2020.
The motion remains under judicial consideration.
Aclaris said, "We and the other defendants dispute plaintiffs"
claims in the Consolidated Securities Action and intend to defend
the matter vigorously."
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company.
The Company deals in identifying, developing, and commercialization
of drugs and therapies to meet needs in dermatology, medical, and
immunology sectors. Aclaris Therapeutics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
ACUITY BRANDS: Seeks 11th Circuit Review in PERS Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Acuity Brands, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE ACUITY BRANDS,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 3,
2020, Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that a shareholder on
January 3, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware against the
company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between June
29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.
On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue the company's stock between
October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.
The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).
On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint"), which supersedes the initial complaints.
The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock between October 7, 2015 and
April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of its
current officers and one former executive violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the company's products
and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. We dispute the allegations in
the complaints and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based
on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint
but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on
five challenged statements to proceed to discovery.
The appellate case is captioned as Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi v. Acuity Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.
20-14283, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before December 1, 2020 as to Appellant Acuity Brands Inc.; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before December 15, 2020 as to Appellee Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
MISSISSIPPI, on its own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, is represented by:
James W. Johnson, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
140 Broadway Fl 34
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: jjohnson@labaton.com
- and -
Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd.
Radnor, PA 19087-5108
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com
azivitz@ktmc.com
Defendants-Appellants ACUITY BRANDS INC; VERNON J. NAGEL; RICHARD
K. REECE; and MARK A. BLACK are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esq.
Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 737-0500
E-mail: jbucholtz@kslaw.com
jmitchell@kslaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Lee, Esq.
Michael R. Smith, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1180 Peachtree St NE Ste 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: blee@kslaw.com
mrsmith@kslaw.com
ADVANTAGE GOLD: Faces Ba Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
MOUHAMADOU BA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other
aggrieved employees v. ADVANTAGE GOLD LLC; KIRILL ZAGALSKY, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20SMCV01687
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 4, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay him and all
other aggrieved employees proper overtime and double time; failed
to pay minimum wage; failed to provide rest and meal periods;
failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements; failed to pay split shift pay; failed to pay all wages
earned on time; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation; failed to provide basic information at the time of
hiring and when employment changes occur; failed to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses; and failed to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee and worked as a customer service representative
from on or about September 29, 2019 until approximately June 11,
2020 when his employment terminated.
Advantage Gold LLC is an investment company specializing in the
conversion of existing individual retirement account (IRA) or
eligible 401(k) plans into self-directed IRAs that provide for
alternative investments, including precious metals such as gold,
silver, platinum, and palladium.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
AFNI INC: Faces Chisom Suit in N.D. Illinois Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFNI, Inc. The case
is styled as Cheryl Chisom, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06565 (N.D.
Ill., November 4, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
The case is assigned to the Honorable Judge John Robert Blakey.
AFNI, Inc. provides financial and commercial services. The Company
develops customized solutions for companies to increase revenue and
build customer relationships, as well as offers contact center and
receivables management solutions to large companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 757-1880
E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
- and -
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-6160
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
ALLIED COLLECTION: Faces Ortega Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-08073-MDR (N.D. Cal., November 16,
2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed pre-recorded
robocalls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone on or about March
23, 2020 in an attempt to collect an outstanding debt and student
loans. The Plaintiff contends that he never had any student loans
or any outstanding debt with the Defendant, never had established a
direct relationship with the Defendant, and never provided his
express consent to the Defendant to be contacted using a
pre-recorded voice.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited robocalls, the Plaintiff
has suffered actual harm and cognizable legal injury, including but
not limited to the invasion of the sanctity and privacy of the
Plaintiff's home and the diminution in the value and utility of the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone plan.
Allied Collection Services, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and –
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131-2800
Tel: (305) 330-5512
Fax: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
ALLSTATE CORP: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re The
Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation.
In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class
action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities
laws.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock during
the class period and suffered damages as the result of the conduct
alleged.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney's
fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers made
allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning claim
frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase
for Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August
3, 2015.
Plaintiffs further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock
option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance
claim frequency.
The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer,
and its former president are the named defendants. After the court
denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018, defendants
answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs' allegations that there
was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct.
On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. The court allowed the lead plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to add the City of Providence Employee Retirement System
as a proposed class representative and on September 12, 2018, the
amended complaint was filed.
On March 26, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and
August 3, 2015.
On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f) and the Court of Appeals
granted that petition on April 25, 2019.
On July 16, 2020, the Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification order and remanded the matter for further
consideration by the district court.
Discovery in this matter concluded on October 5, 2020. The court
will consider supplemental briefing on the issue of class
certification; Allstate's supplemental brief regarding class
certification is due on October 28, 2020.
The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.
ALLSTATE FIRE: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bloomgarden Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled David
Bloomgarden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62879-RAR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs resulting from breach of
contract.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs are insured under
standardized insurance policies covering damage to motor vehicles.
Their vehicles have sustained significant property damage and are
covered under their policy. However, Allstate has improperly
reduced the actual cash value payments to Plaintiff and Class
Members because it based them on an invalid method and algorithm
for determining value of insured vehicles.
The appellate case is captioned as Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company v. David Bloomgarden, Case No. 20-90026, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, November
9, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID BLOOMGARDEN, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLP
110 SE 6th St. Suite 2150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Email: mfistos@zplIp.com
ezeberski@zpllp.com
- and -
Carly Abramson Kligler, Esq.
Jordi Martinez-Cid, Esq.
Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
LEON COSGROVE, LLP
255 Alhambra Cir Fl 8
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1975
E-mail: ckligler@leoncosgrove.com
jmartinez-cid@leoncosgrove.com
aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
Defendant-Petitioner ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
is represented by:
Wendy N. Enerson, Esq.
Peter J. Valeta, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
123 N Wacker Dr Ste 1800
Chicago, IL 60606-1743
Telephone: (312) 474-7900
E-mail: wenerson@cozen.com
pvaleta@cozen.com
- and -
Alexandra Jordan Schultz, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1 North Clematis St Ste 510
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 515-5205
Facsimile: (561) 697-8664
E-mail: aschultz@cozen.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Turner Appeals ERISA Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Garnet Turner, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Garnet Turner, et al v.
Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-00685-ECM-KFP, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
The appellate case is captioned as Garnet Turner, et al v. Allstate
Insurance Company, Case No. 20-14105, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
The Allstate Corporation is an American-based insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.[BN]
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss CCERF Putative Class Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, 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 Court
entered a Decision and Order denying the defendants' motion to
dismiss filed in the purported class action suit initiated by the
Chester County Employees Retirement Fund.
On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation
of federal securities laws against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the company's November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.
On November 7, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, or
the New York Complaint. The New York Complaint is brought on behalf
of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's securities
pursuant and/or traceable to its November 14, 2017 public stock
offering.
The New York Complaint purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the results of the company's
APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.
All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York
Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019.
On November 2, 2020, the Court entered a Decision and Order denying
the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Leavitt Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, 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
seeking leave to file a further amended complaint in the class
action suit initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt, is still pending.
On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 8, 2019, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint, or the
Complaint.
In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also
named as defendants certain of our other executive officers, and
purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who
acquired the company's securities between September 20, 2017 and
September 12, 2018 and sought to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO.
The plaintiff sought, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.
All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the
company's motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.
Pursuant to a prior Order of the Court, on June 1, 2020, the
plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a further amended
complaint.
That motion was fully briefed on June 22, 2020, and remains pending
with the Court.
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ALPHABET INC: Esquivel Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLY ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHABET INC.; and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-10549 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Google maintains a
monopoly in the Google Play Market and is able to charge
supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases. Google uses
anticompetitive covenants in Google's Mobile Application
Distribution Agreement ("MADA"), requiring Original Equipment
Manufacturer ("OEM") to license the entire suite of Google
applications and services to also license the Android OS. Google
also requires OEMS to pre-install Google Play on its home page. If
OEM refuse these restrictive terms and conditions, they lose access
to the Android OS.
As a result of the MADA terms and conditions, Google has
successfully prevented competition from its competitors in the
Google Play Market. Google's MADA agreements also allow Google to
charge supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases,
harming Plaintiff and Class members by limiting consumer choice.
Similarly, Google uses its Developer Distribution Agreement ("DDA")
to contractually restrict competition in the Google Play Market.
Amongst other terms, the DDA mandated that developers comply with
Google's Developer Program Policies, including using Google's
proprietary in-app billing for in-app game payments, as well as
certain other digital in-app purchases. The DDA also requires that
developers "may not use Google Play to distribute or make available
any product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of
software applications and games for use on Android devices outside
of Google Play." Google has the power to eliminate any Android app
it believes has violated any portion of the DDA.
Alphabet Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides Web-based search, advertisements, maps,
software applications, mobile operating systems, consumer content,
enterprise solutions, commerce, and hardware products.
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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric M. George, Esq.
Maribeth Annaguey, Esq.
Carl Alan Roth, Esq.
James L. Michaels, Esq.
Jason Y. Kelly, Esq.
BROWNE GEORGE ROSS
O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY & ELLIS LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: egeorge@bgrfirm.com
mannaguey@bgrfirm.com
croth@bgrfirm.com
jmichaels@bgrfirm.com
jkelly@bgrfirm.com
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in NY Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
for class certification in the consolidated putative class action
suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, is still pending.
On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN, and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN, respectively,
were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the
secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures.
On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions.
On January 22, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 23, 2019, the court
granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. On
March 2, 2020, plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. The
motion was fully briefed on September 21, 2020.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.
AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Bruce Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Bruce, et
al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al.
On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("TAWC"), experienced a
break of a 36-inch water transmission main, which caused service
fluctuations or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of
a boil water notice.
TAWC repaired the main break by early morning on September 14,
2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon on September
15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on
September 16, 2019.
On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and
American Water Works Service Company, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, on behalf of an alleged class of
individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary
losses as a result of the Chattanooga main break.
The complaint as filed alleged breach of contract and negligence
against the Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an
equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint
as filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs are seeking an award of
unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic
losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of
property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On November 22, 2019, the Tennessee-American Water Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and, with respect to the Company, for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Oral argument on the motion to
dismiss took place on September 9, 2020.
On September 18, 2020, the court (i) granted the motion to dismiss
the Tennessee Plaintiffs' negligence claim against all
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, (ii) denied the motion to
dismiss the breach of contract claim against TAWC, (iii) held in
abeyance the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims
against the Company and Service Company pending a further hearing
and (iv) held in abeyance the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On September 24, 2020, at the request of the Tennessee Plaintiffs,
the court dismissed without prejudice all claims in the Bruce
complaint against the Company and Service Company. The impact of
the September 2020 court orders was that all of the Tennessee
Plaintiffs' claims in this complaint were dismissed, other than the
breach of contract claims against TAWC.
On October 16, 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties
are commencing with discovery.
American Water said, "TAWC and the Company believe that TAWC has
meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class action
complaint, and TAWC is vigorously defending itself against these
allegations. The Company cannot currently determine the likelihood
of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or a range of
such losses related to this proceeding."
American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.
AMERICAN WATER: Jeffries Class Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company, has been
stayed.
On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed.
The water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's
(WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar.
The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers.
In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a
repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26,
2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that
day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the
remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The second repair
showed signs of leaking, but the water main was usable until June
29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill.
The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but
approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed
safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July
1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event.
On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break.
The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system.
The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf
of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and
loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and
wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a
large outage.
In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the Jeffries plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory
and common law tort claims.
Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public Service Commission of
West Virginia, and not the court, has primary jurisdiction over
allegations involving violations of the applicable tariff, the
public utility code and related rules.
In May 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to
apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and in October 2018, the
court issued a written order to that effect. On February 21, 2019,
the court issued an order denying WVAWC's motion to dismiss the
Jeffries plaintiffs' tort claims.
On February 4, 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. A hearing on class
certification was held on March 11, 2020, followed by a status
conference on April 7, 2020. On June 11, 2020, the court ruled that
it would partially grant the Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for
certification of an issues class and would deny the request for
certification of a class to determine a punitive damages multiplier
for the class.
On July 14, 2020, the court entered an order reflecting its June
11, 2020 rulings, and on August 31, 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition
for a Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia seeking to vacate or remand the certification of the
issues class.
At the request of the parties, the trial court entered an order on
September 10, 2020 to stay all matters in the class proceeding
pending consideration of this petition.
A trial date for the class proceeding has been set for April 12,
2021, but the Company believes that it will likely be delayed.
American Water said, "The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has
valid, meritorious defenses to the claims raised in this class
action complaint. WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against
these allegations. The Company cannot currently determine the
likelihood of a loss, if any, or estimate the amount of any loss or
a range of such losses related to this proceeding."
American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.
ANAPTYSBIO INC: Securities Class Suit on Etokimab Reports Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AnaptysBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself in a putative shareholder class action
suit related to its drug etokimab.
On March 25, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current or former
officers as defendants.
The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Exchange Act Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons
and entities who acquired the company's common stock between
October 10, 2017 and November 7, 2019.
An amended complaint was filed on September 30, 2020 alleging that,
during the Class Period, the defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the company's etokimab
product candidate that artificially inflated the company's stock
price.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, as well as costs and expenses.
The company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
On September 1, 2020, a related shareholder derivative complaint
was filed based on allegations substantially similar to those in
the class action, and asserting claims against current or former
officers and directors for contribution under Sections 10(b) and
21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and corporate waste.
AnaptysBio siad, "Because the Company is in the early stages of
this litigation matter, we are unable to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these
matters."
AnaptysBio, Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company
developing first-in-class immunology therapeutic product candidates
to patients. The Company is based in San Diego, California.
ANDY LEE: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages for Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hyung Yul KIM v. ANDY LEE LIQUOR, INC. doing business as and also
known as New H Wine & Sprits, Eun JUNG, Peter H. JUNG, and John
KANG, also known as John Kong, Mr. Kang, and Mr. Kong, Case No.
1:20-cv-03283 (D.D.C., November 13, 2020) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and those similarly situated arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage
Act, the Wage and Hour Rules within the D.C. Municipal Regulations,
and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to perform manual work --
such as stocking, displaying, packaging, and cleaning of the goods
to be sold -- as laborer at Defendants' store.
Based in Washington, D.C., Andy Lee Liquor, Inc. engages in the
business of the sale of beer, wine & liquor which conducts business
under the name New H Wine & Spirits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
(Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
RYU & RYU, PLC
301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
Vienna, VA 22180
ANTARES PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, 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 defendants'
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Third Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case, Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell, Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, is
pending.
On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell, Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf
of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017,
inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.
The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in connection with the New Drug Application (NDA) for
XYOSTED(R); and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the
approval prospects for XYOSTED(R).
On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for the plaintiff.
On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order, the
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on
January 10, 2019 and defendants filed a reply in support of their
motion on February 25, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the court dismissed
the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.
On July 29, 2019, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended
Class Action Complaint against the same parties alleging
substantially similar claims. On September 12, 2019, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on October 28,
2019 and defendants’ reply in support of their motion was filed
on November 27, 2019.
On April 28, 2020, the court dismissed the Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The court further
ordered that plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 29,
2020 and provide the court with a form of the amended complaint
that indicates in what respect(s) it differs from the complaint
which it proposes to amend.
On May 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Third Amended
Class Action Complaint and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
on July 10, 2020.
Briefing on the defendants' motion was complete on August 25, 2020.
The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.
Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.
APPLE INC: Best Companies Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best Companies, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06971, (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2020),
seeks monetary damages, including but not limited to, compensatory,
incidental, and consequential damages, punitive damages, attorney
fees and costs incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance
with California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False
Advertising Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Apple allegedly failed to inform consumers that updating their
iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2)
would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these
devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone
performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's
lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new
phone.
iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest 10.2.1
iOS update, however users still complained of slow devices.
Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLP
401 Center Street, Suite 111
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Telephone: (707) 820-4247
Email: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com
- and -
Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
KAMBERLAW, LLC
201 Milwaukee St, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80246
Telephone: (303) 222-0281
Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com
masch@kamberlaw.com
APPLE INC: Seeks Seventh Circuit Review in Hazlitt BIPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Apple Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated November 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
ROSLYN HAZLITT, JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE,
RICHARD ROBINSON, and YOLANDA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. APPLE
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges Apple violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) by collecting, possessing, and profiting from the
biometric identifiers and biometric information of Illinois
citizens -- specifically, scans of face geometry -- via the Photos
software application on Apple's phones, tablets, and computers.
Apple Inc. sought permission to appeal the district court's
November 12, 2020 order, which remanded to state court a BIPA claim
that should have been dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Apple said the court correctly observed that
the theory on which the claim was based was not cognizable under
BIPA, but mistakenly treated the Plaintiffs' failure to state a
claim as a lack of standing. As a result, the court sent the claim
back to Illinois state court instead of dismissing it outright.
This erroneous disposition implicates a legal question, albeit one
that can be resolved easily under well-established principles
demarcating Rule 12(b)(6) issues from Article III standing issues.
As a result, the Defendant filed a petition for permission to
appeal the remand order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c)(1)
and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 on November 23, 2020.
The appellate case is captioned as ROSLYN HAZLITT, JANE DOE, BY AND
THROUGH NEXT FRIEND JOE DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, AND YOLANDA BROWN,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KNOW AND UNKNOWN, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Petitioner, Case No. 20-8033, in the United States Court
of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by:
Stanley J. Panikowski, Esq.
Amanda Fitzsimmons, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Telephone: (619) 699-2700
E-mail: stanley.panikowski@dlapiper.com
amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com
- and -
Raj N. Shah, Esq.
Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
DLA Piper LLP (US)
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606-0089
Telephone: (312) 368-4000
E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Suboxone Sublingual Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a case entitled, In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine
Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or
the Suboxone MDL.
On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010
and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.
After filing the suit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and
Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL,
a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.
While the company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.
The company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims, but by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. The company filed an answer denying the States'
claims on November 20, 2017. The fact discovery period closed July
27, 2018, but the parties agreed to conduct certain fact
depositions in August 2018.
The expert discovery phase closed May 30, 2019, but additional
reports and depositions were conducted through August 1, 2019.
The remainder of the case schedule, including summary judgment
briefing, is stayed pending resolution of Indivior's appeal of the
District Court's class certification ruling in a co-pending
multi-district litigation to which we are not a party.
On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued its opinion affirming the District Court's order certifying
the class. On August 27, 2020, the district court issued a
scheduling order, setting the deadline for filing remaining Daubert
challenges and summary judgment.
Under the scheduling order, the remaining Daubert motions were
filed on September 28, 2020, and oppositions are due on October 19,
2020.
The court will set oral argument on the motions, but the date for
oral argument is not yet known.
Summary judgment motions are due January 11, 2021, and responses to
summary judgment motions are due February 11, 2021. No trial date
has yet been set.
Aquestive said, "We are not able to determine or predict the
ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate, or range of estimate, of the possible outcome or loss, if
any, in this matter."
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces Blenkhorn Suit in Cal. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arakelian
Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Les Blenkhorn,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ronald
Arakelian, Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., Crown Recycling Services,
Athens Disposal, Athens Disposal Services, K&I Services, Inc., and
Orozco Transport, Case No. BCV-20-102652 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty.,
November 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged damage of real property.
A case management conference is set for May 17, 2021 before Judge
Thomas S. Clark.
The Defendants are waste collection and recycling services
providers across the state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven P. Scandura, Esq.
1601 N Sepulveda Blvd # 502
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-5111
Telephone: (310) 473-6300
Facsimile: (310) 626-9780
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Directed to File Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf
of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leverage Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v.
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, and EDWARD C. MILLER, Case No.
1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm
entered an order:
1. denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss;
2. granting Plaintiff's Motion to File a Sur-Reply, Because
Defendants' added new arguments to their reply brief;
3. directing the Plaintiff to file her Motion for Conditional
Class Certification on or before December 1, 2020 and the
Defendants shall file a response on or before December 22,
2020.
The Plaintiff is an employee of Morton Buildings Inc. and
participated in the company's Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP)
that was created in May 2017. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of participants in the ESOP. Defendant Argent Trust Company
is the trustee of the ESOP and negotiated the purchase of stock on
the ESOP's behalf. Defendants Jan Rouse and Edward C. Miller were
majority shareholders of Morton's who sold their stock to the
ESOP.
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 30, 2020, alleging that
the Defendants violated ERISA through the purchase and financing of
the ESOP that was problematic for several reasons. The Plaintiff
explains that the ESOP purchased over 2 million shares of Morton's
stock for approximately $147 million. The purchase was partially
financed by Morton and partially financed by the selling
shareholders. The Plaintiff asserts that the price of the stock
plummeted after the sale, dropping from $75.25 at the time of the
sale on May 8, 2017 to $33.78 as of December 31, 2017 and then
again dropping to $29.48 by December 21, 2018.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f1R49t at no extra charge.[CC]
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, 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 lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance
programs.
The Company is involved in a variety of litigation and legal and
regulatory proceedings relating to its current and past business
operations and, from time to time, it may become involved in other
such actions. In particular, the Company is a defendant in class
actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding its Lender-placed
Insurance programs.
These cases assert a variety of claims under a number of legal
theories.
The plaintiffs typically seek premium refunds and other relief.
The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class
actions.
The Company has participated and may participate in settlements on
terms that the Company considers reasonable.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Assurant, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides risk management
solutions for housing and lifestyle markets in North America, Latin
America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company operates through
three segments: Global Housing, Global Lifestyle, and Global
Preneed. The company was formerly known as Fortis, Inc. and changed
its name to Assurant, Inc. in February 2004. Assurant, Inc. was
founded in 1892 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Venue of Smith Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to transfer the
case, JM SMITH CORPORATION, d/b/a SMITH DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA
PHARMACEUTICALS L P, ASTRAZENECA L P, ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED, HANDA
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 19 Civ. 7233 (CM) (S.D. N.Y.), to the District of
Delaware.
Smith commenced the antitrust class action on behalf of itself and
similarly situated direct purchaser plaintiffs ("DPPs") against
Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. and AstraZeneca L.P.,
AstraZeneca UK Ltd., Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. The case arises from alleged conspiracies
between and among the Defendants to delay and suppress competition
for generic versions of AstraZeneca's branded quetiapine fumarate
extended-release tablets, Seroquel XR(R). Specifically,
AstraZeneca entered into allegedly anti-competitive patent
settlement agreements with Handa (later assigned to Par) and
non-party Accord Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Before generic versions of Seroquel XR entered the market,
AstraZeneca sold branded Seroquel XR in the United States to the
tune of $1 billion per year. Handa, a generics manufacturer, was
the first to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for
the 50, 150, 200, and 300mg strengths of generic Seroquel XR. It
also filed an ANDA for the 400mg strength, but it was not the first
to do so. Rather, Accord filed the first ANDA for the 400mg
strength generic Seroquel XR.
Handa and Accord sent AstraZeneca Paragraph IV notice letters, each
certifying that they would seek final FDA approval and intended to
launch their generic Seroquel XR products prior to the expiration
of AstraZeneca's follow-on patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,948,437. They
claimed the '437 Patent was invalid or otherwise would not be
infringed by their generic products. The '437 Patent expired on
May 28, 2017, and its regulatory exclusivities expired on Nov. 28,
2017.
In 2008 and early 2009, AstraZeneca initiated patent infringement
lawsuits against Handa and Accord in the District of New Jersey,
alleging that their respective ANDAs infringed the '437 Patent.
Around Oct. 1, 2011, AstraZeneca allegedly entered into two
settlement agreements -- one with Handa, the other with Accord --
whereby the parties resolved the patent lawsuits; Handa and Accord
agreed to delay their launches of generic Seroquel XR (in their
respective strengths) until Nov. 1, 2016; and AstraZeneca agreed
not to launch an authorized generic ("AG") Seroquel XR until May 1,
2017.
On Oct. 29, 2012, Par -- another generics manufacturer -- announced
that it had acquired Handa's ANDA. As part of the agreement, Handa
assigned Par the settlement agreement with AstraZeneca -- including
the right to market generic Seroquel XR on Nov. 1, 2016. Par was
required to share a portion of its profits from the sale of the
generic with Handa.
Smith and the putative class of DPPs were harmed by the allegedly
unlawful settlement agreements because (a) no generic Seroquel XR
was available until Nov. 1, 2016 and (b) only one generic was
available for six months thereafter, until May 1, 2017. Absent the
settlement agreements, (a) generics would have entered the market
sooner and (b) AstraZeneca's AG would have launched at the time
those generics entered the market -- such that the DPPs could have
acquired extended-release quetiapine fumarate at significantly
lower prices substantially earlier.
Smith asserts five causes of action under the Sherman Act: Counts I
and II assert violations of Section 1 and Section 2, respectively,
against AstraZeneca, Handa, and Par as to the 50, 150, 200, and
300mg strengths of Seroquel XR; Counts III and IV assert violations
of Section 1 and Section 2, respectively, against AstraZeneca as to
the 400mg strength of Seroquel XR; and Count V asserts a violation
of Section 2 against AstraZeneca for monopolization and
monopolistic scheme.
The Defendants assert that two agreements cover Smith's
relationship with AstraZeneca: (1) a 2005 Wholesale Distribution
Agreement ("Wholesale Agreement") and (2) a 2011 Wholesale
Distribution Services Agreement, amended in 2016 ("DS Agreements").
The Wholesale Agreement appoints Smith as a non-exclusive
distributor for AstraZeneca's products. The DS Agreements govern,
inter alia, the level of inventory of Seroquel XR Smith must
maintain. While the Wholesale Agreement does not contain a
separate forum selection clause, Defendants note that the DS
Agreements expressly state that to the extent that the terms of the
Wholesale Distribution Agreement and this Agreement conflict, the
terms of the Agreement will control. The DS Agreements are
governed by Delaware law.
All the Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or
improper venue; or in the alternative, to transfer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404. In a separate motion, they also moved to
dismiss Smith's Complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Defendants assert -- and Smith does not dispute -- that the
forum selection clause in the DS Agreements was clearly
communicated to Smith and is mandatory because it contains clear
language that litigation will proceed "exclusively" in the
designated forum. Smith contests (a) whether its antitrust claims
are subject to the forum selection clause and (b) whether, the
Section 1404(a) public interest factors make enforcement
unreasonable or unjust.
Judge McMahon finds that the broad forum selection clause in the DS
Agreements reaches Smith's claims and remedies that each "relate
to" and "touch on" its DS Agreements with AstraZeneca. The Judge
says Smith has a potential cause of action as a direct purchaser
only because it entered into commercial contracts with AstraZeneca
to purchase Seroquel. Smith does not assert statutory tort claims
that would be assertable had there been no Agreement. Moreover,
Smith has not cited the Court to any cases involving price-fixing
allegations under the Sherman Act that have refused to enforce a
forum selection clause in a similar agreement.
Moreover, Judge McMahon finds that Smith's stated public interest
factors -- which carry little to no weight in the case -- are not
sufficiently "extraordinary" under Atlantic Marine to prevent
transfer. First, Smith relies on cases that are materially
distinct from its case. Second, the underlying patent litigations,
negotiations, and settlements all occurred outside New York. Smith
itself alleges that the conspiracy was intended to -- and did --
affect interstate commerce and persons doing business throughout
the United States. Lastly, while the Judge takes no pleasure in
adding to the already busy docket of her colleagues in Delaware,
conditions are no more favorable for speedy litigation in the
Southern District of New York. Smith's claims against AstraZeneca
should be transferred.
Having found that Smith's claims against AstraZeneca must be heard
in Delaware, the only remaining question is whether it is
appropriate to transfer its claims against the remaining
Defendants: AZ UK, Handa, and Par. As Smith points out, there is
no forum selection clause between Smith and Par, Handa, or AZ UK.
Nevertheless, transfer is warranted under Section 1404(a).
Evaluation of the Section 1404(a) factors does not suggest any
material reason to keep the case in the Southern District of New
York.
First, Smith's choice of forum does not favor retention in the
district. Second, both cities are located in the Northeastern
United States along a major transportation corridor; there is no
difference in convenience to anyone, which neutralizes this factor.
Third, transfer would neither shift the Defendants' inconvenience
to Smith nor add substantially (or at all) to Smith's
inconvenience. Fourth, it is not a case in which one party seeks
to sever and transfer only certain claims. Lastly, the private
interest factors are essentially neutral, while the interest of
justice weighs heavily in favor of transferring the case to the
District of Delaware. For these reasons, the transfer is warranted
under Section 1404(a) as to all claims against all the Defendants.
Accordingly, Judge McMahon granted the Defendants' motion to
transfer the case to the District of Delaware.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy28zxsn from Leagle.com.
ATLAS LAW: Curtis Suit Wins Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD CURTIS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ATLAS LAW, PLLC,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01811-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary S.
Scriven entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the joint motion for
class certification and final approval of class action
settlement agreement;
2. certifying lawsuit as a class action on behalf of:
"all natural persons with a Florida address to whom the
Defendant sent a letter based on the Template in
connection with the collection of a debt on or after July
24, 2018 through August 6, 2019."; and
3. certifying the Plaintiff Leonard Curtis as the Class
Representative and Alex D. Weisberg and David N. McDevitt
as Class Counsel for the Class Members;
The Court finds the lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites
for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23."
The Court held that the Agreement is finally approved in part, with
the exception of the $500 service award to the Plaintiff pursuant
to the Parties' stipulation at the Final Approval Hearing, and
shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof.
The material terms of the settlement include:
a. The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $1,000 in statutory
damages.
b. The Defendant shall pay to the Eligible Class Members
the total sum of $4,000.00. The Claims Administrator
shall distribute such funds equally among the Eligible
Class Members as provided for in the Agreement.
c. The Defendant shall pay Class Counsel reasonable
attorneys' fees costs, and expenses.
The Court Order provides for these attorneys' fees and costs:
The Parties have filed a Notice Regarding Plaintiff's
Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, advising that they
agree that Class Counsel should be awarded $17,000.00 in
attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The Court awards the
stipulated total of $17,000.00 to Class Counsel in
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, which the Court
finds to be a reasonable fee in relation to the work
expended. The Court further finds that the hourly rates
requested by Class Counsel, including $450 per hour for
Alex Weisberg, $400 per hour for Elliot Rosenberger, $450
per hour for Russell S. Thompson, $400 per hour for David
McDevitt, and $135 per hour for Joel Wresh, are
reasonable, given the experience, reputation and ability
of those for whom the rates are sought, the outcome of
the representation, the customary fees charged, and the
novelty or difficulty of the issued presented in this
matter.
Atlas Law Firm is a Bankruptcy Debt Relief and Consumer Protection
Agency owned and operated by Mike Sheridan.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kA0mLf at no extra charge.[CC]
AVANGRID INC: Dismissal of PNE Energy Supply's Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the First Circuit
denied PNE Energy Supply, LLC's appeal and affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of PNE's complaint in the class action suit
entitled, PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and Avangrid,
Inc.
On August 10, 2018, PNE, a competitive energy supplier located in
New England that purchases electricity in the day-ahead and
real-time wholesale electric market, filed a civil antitrust
action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, against
the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective gas
subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline capacity
in the "secondary capacity market" in order to artificially inflate
New England natural gas and electricity prices.
These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the
whitepaper issued by EDF. The plaintiff claims to represent
entities who purchased electricity directly in the wholesale
electricity market that it claims was targeted by the alleged
anticompetitive conduct of Eversource and the Company.
On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff inquiry and the
dismissal of the related case, "Breiding et al. v. Eversource and
Avangrid," by the same court in September.
The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October
26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The
district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on
January 18, 2019.
On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in support of its
motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district court granted
the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all claims.
On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, on October 18, 2019,
filed a brief in support of appeal.
On January 2, 2020, the Company and Eversource filed a joint motion
in opposition and on January 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a reply
brief.
On April 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
canceled oral arguments of the appeal and ordered the case to be
decided on the briefs without oral argument.
On September 9, 2020, the First Circuit denied the appeal and
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of PNE's complaint.
Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissed from Bahamas Indemnification Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trial court in
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), ordered
that the entire case against Avanos is dismissed, the judgment
against Kimberly-Clark is vacated, and the class claims are
decertified.
The company had an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) filed on
October 29, 2014.
In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action
asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with our
marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns.
On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and
$350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for
$0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the
court also ruled on the plaintiff’s UCL claim and request for
injunctive relief.
The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but
denied the plaintiff's request for restitution. The court also
denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.
On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking,
among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced.
On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against the company and Kimberly-Clark that
substantially reduced the punitive damages awards.
Under the Amended Judgment, the judgment against the company was
$0.4 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and
$1.3 million in punitive damages. The judgment against
Kimberly-Clark was $3.9 million in compensatory damages, $2.7
million in pre-judgment interest, and $19.4 million in punitive
damages.
On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate
court vacated the judgment against the company and remanded the
case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos
because Bahamas lacked standing to sue the company.
The appellate court also ruled that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to decertify the class as defined and,
therefore, vacated the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded
it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its
ruling.
On August 6, 2020, Bahamas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a
rehearing en banc, and on September 9, 2020, the appellate court
denied their petition. On October 19, 2020, the trial court ordered
that the entire case against Avanos is dismissed, the judgment
against Kimberly-Clark is vacated, and the class claims are
decertified.
Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the
Bahamas matter."
Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.
AVENU INSIGHTS: Palmer Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TIMOTHY PALMER, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. AVENU INSIGHTS AND
ANALYTICS, LLC, CONDUENT INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 20VECV0104, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on November 19, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10591 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including retaliation, failure to pay wages upon termination,
failure to pay all wages earned on regularly scheduled pay days,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, failure
to pay proper minimum wage, failure to keep accurate records,
failure to enter into commission contract, breach of oral contract,
and fraud.
Avenu Insights and Analytics, LLC is a provider of analytics and
administrative solutions, with principal place of business in
Herndon, Virginia.
Conduent Inc. is an American business process services company
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin M. Gipson, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
BASE MANAGEMENT: Cooper Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 8th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Catrice Cooper, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Catrice Cooper and Kimberly
Landy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Adam Glickman and Base Management Services, LLC, Defendants,,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00074-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas - Central.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Defendants own and manage multi-family housing complexes throughout
the state where Cooper and Landy were employed as property
managers. According to the Plaintiffs, they routinely work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek but the Defendants' overtime
computation failed to include the value of the nondiscretionary
bonuses that they get.
The appellate case is captioned as Catrice Cooper, et al. v. Adam
Glickman, et al., Case No. 20-3413, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appendix is due on December 28, 2020;
-- Brief of Appellants Catrice Cooper and Kimberly Landy is due
on December 28, 2020; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Catrice Cooper, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated; and Kimberly Landy, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Telephone: (479) 880-0088
E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Suite 411, One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
Defendants-Appellees Adam Glickman and Base Management Services LLC
are represented by:
John T. Holleman, Esq.
Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1008 W. Second Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 975-5040
E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
tim@johnholleman.net
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Catucci Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the "Catucci" lawsuit before the Quebec Superior
Court have reached a settlement and are awaiting the court's
approval of the deal. A hearing to approve the settlement was
scheduled for November 16, 2020.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that six
putative class actions were filed in 2015 and served against the
Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions
that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been
served on the Company and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined above.
The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015.
The alleged violations relate to the same matters described in a
securities litigation pending the U.S.
Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action
in the Quebec Superior Court, has been discontinued.
In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the
plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec
Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26,
2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating
Class Proceedings.
After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a
settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the
Company's auditors and the action was dismissed as against them.
On August 4, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in Catucci, on behalf of the class, pursuant to
which it agreed to resolve the Catucci action for the amount of CAD
94,000,000 plus payment of an additional amount to cover notice and
settlement administration costs and disbursements.
As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants
admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all
allegations of wrongdoing. The settlement agreement is subject to
court approval.
If court approval is granted, the Catucci action will be dismissed
against the Company, its current and former directors and officers,
its underwriters and its insurers.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Ferguson v. BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.
In July 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Ferguson v. BBVA USA Bancshares,
Inc., wherein the plaintiffs allege certain investment options
within the Compan'’s employee retirement plan violate provisions
of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.
The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.
The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Miami Retirement Trust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, City of
Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al.
In July 2020, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York, City of Miami Fire
Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege that Occidental
Petroleum Corporation, its officers and directors, and the
underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and
misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus
related to a securities offering.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.
The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that
conducts its business operations primarily through its commercial
banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama banking
corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The Parent was
organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April, Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was moving to
unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding, the Bank
will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name and be
re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective June 10,
2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to change its
legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc.
The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.
BBVA USA: Hill Class Suit Underway in California
------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that BBVA USA continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Sarah Hill v. BBVA
USA.
In June 2020, BBVA USA was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California styled Sarah Hill v. BBVA USA,
challenging BBVA USA's assessment of certain overdraft fees. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.
The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.
The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.
BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Suit Over PPP Loan Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA.
In April 2020, the Bank was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas styled
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA, wherein plaintiffs
allege the Bank tortiously failed to process certain loan requests
submitted in connection with the federal Paycheck Protection
Program.
The plaintiffs seek an amount not less than $10 million along with
other demands for unspecified monetary relief.
The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that
conducts its business operations primarily through its commercial
banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama banking
corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The Parent was
organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April, Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was moving to
unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding, the Bank
will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name and be
re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective June 10,
2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to change its
legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc.
The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.
BERGAILA COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Zinn Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T. RAY ZINN, individually and for other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE BERGAILA COMPANY d/b/a BES ENGINEERING, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-03875 (S.D. Tex., November 13, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant to
recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an Assistant
Commissioning Chief from approximately March 2019 until October
2020.
The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours in a
workweek, he did not receive any overtime pay at all because the
Defendant failed to pay him at an applicable overtime rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA.
Instead, the Defendant paid him a shift rate with additional
straight time pay after working 10 hours in a day.
The Bergaila Company d/b/a BES Engineering connects world-renown
oil and gas, engineering and construction, and oil field service
companies nationwide with talented professionals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
BIOGEN INC: Faces Menashe Suit Over 28% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR D. MENASHE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, JEFFREY D.
CAPELLO, and MICHAEL R. MCDONNELL, Case No. 2:20-cv-10399 (C.D.
Cal., November 13, 2020) seeks to recover compensable damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Biogen securities between October 22, 2019 and November 6, 2020,
inclusive.
On October 22, 2019, Biogen issued a press release entitled "Biogen
Plans Regulatory Filing for Aducanumab in Alzheimer's Disease Based
on New Analysis of Larger Dataset from Phase 3 Studies." Biogen
also released a slideshow entitled "Aducanumab Update" which
provided information regarding aducanumab. On the same day, the
Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2019 which was signed by Defendant Capello. Attached to the 3Q19
Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 signed by Defendants Vounatsos and Capello attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud.
A series of disclosures was released by the Company until November
6, 2020, in attest to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud,
along with study results regarding aducanumab.
According to the complaint, the disclosed statements were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to
the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary
data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did
not and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the Food and Drug Administration's
Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did
not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result,
the Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On this news, Biogen's stock price fell $92.64 per share, or 28%,
to close at $236.26 per share on November 9, 2020, the next trading
day, damaging investors.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the suit alleges.
Based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Biogen Inc. develops,
manufactures, and commercializes therapies, focusing on neurology,
oncology, and immunology. The Company products address diseases
such as multiple sclerosis, non-hodgkin's lymphoma, rheumatoid
arthritis, crohn's disease, and psoriasis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Properly Secure Customer Data, Imhof Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI IMHOF individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-02738-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., November 20, 2020) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, alleging
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, breach of
confidence and invasion of privacy, and violation of the Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, on or about July 16, 2020, Blackbaud
notified Stetson University of a ransomware attack on their
internal systems, their personally identifiable information (PII),
which was stored on Blackbaud's cloud, had been illegally exposed
to unauthorized third parties. The notice sent to the Plaintiff on
October 2, 2020, by Stetson University, indicated that in May of
2020, Blackbaud discovered a ransomware attack that compromised PII
in its custody and care. The ransomware attack began in February of
2020 and continued for approximately three months until it was
finally stopped in May 2020.
The suit asserts that the PII exposed in the data breach included,
among other things, individuals' names, addresses, phone numbers,
email addresses, dates of birth, financial information, and medical
service information. The data breach was allegedly a direct result
of Blackbaud's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' PII stored in its cloud.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure their data and cyber security systems were protected against
unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have
adequately robust computer systems and security practices to
safeguard individual PII; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the data breach; failing to monitor and
timely detect the data breach; and failing to provide the Plaintiff
and Class members with prompt and accurate notice of the data
breach, the suit says.
Blackbaud Inc. is a publicly traded company that provides its
customers with cloud-based software, services, expertise, and data
intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
SunTrust Financial Center
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Faszczewski Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Linda Faszczewski, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04758 (E.D. N.Y., October 5, 2020), seeks actual damages,
compensatory damages, statutory damages and statutory penalties, an
award of punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other
expense, including expert witness fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of express/implied contract.
Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the
data obtained by schools and non-profit companies, including Stony
Brook University Hospital's cloud-based and data solution services
related to Stony Brook's patient information. In May of 2020,
ransomware attack and data breach of several schools, healthcare,
non-profit companies and other organizations whose data and servers
were managed, maintained and secured by Blackbaud, compromised
sensitive and personal data from students, patients, donors and
other individual users. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
23 Green Street, Suite 105
Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: (631) 458-1010
Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Mandel Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Eric Mandel, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-03534 (D. S.C., October 7, 2020), seeks actual damages,
compensatory damages, statutory damages and statutory penalties, an
award of punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
expense, including expert witness fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of express/implied contract and for violation of South
Carolina's Data Breach Security Act.
Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the
data obtained by Allina Health. In May of 2020, ransomware attack
and data breach of several schools, healthcare, non-profit
companies and other organizations whose data and servers were
managed, maintained and secured by Blackbaud compromised sensitive
and personal data from patients. Mandel was treated at an Allina
Health facility in Minnesota [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
701 E. Bay St., Suite 411
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 444-5404
Facsimile: (843) 444-5408
Email: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com
fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com
- and -
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
Suite 2200 100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Tel. (612) 339-6900
Email: khreibel@locklaw.com
mkberg@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
Paul Stephan, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
pstephan@cohenmilstein.com
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Delapaz Appeals Savino Suit Ruling to 1st Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners GABRI DELAPAZ, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Celimen Savino, et al. v.
Souza, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-WGY, in the in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.
Steven J. Souza is the Superintendent of the Bristol County House
of Correction. Thomas M. Hodgson is sued in his official capacity
as Bristol County Sheriff.
The named Petitioners are two of approximately 148 individuals
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on civil
immigration charges and held at the Bristol County House of
Corrections ("BCHOC") in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The
Detainees are held in two on-site facilities: 92 are in a separate
ICE facility called the C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention
Center, and the rest are housed in a portion of the BHCOC called
"Unit B" together with non-immigration pre-trial detainees.
The Detainees assert that they find it impossible to maintain the
recommended distance of 6 feet from others and they must also share
or touch objects used by others. They have provided affidavits from
two physicians, who have recently visited Detainees on site. Dr.
Nathan Praschan of Massachusetts General Hospital states that the
best-known methods of preventing infectious spread, such as social
distancing, frequent hand washing, and sanitation of surfaces are
unavailable to the Detainees, who sleep, eat, and recreate in
extremely close quarters and do not have access to basic hygienic
supplies. Dr. Matthew Gartland of Brigham and Women's Hospital
avers that based on his own experience visiting Bristol County
House of Corrections, he does not believe that the Detainees, can
be adequately protected from the virus that causes COVID-19. This
is based on a lack of private sinks or showers and inadequate hand
soap supplies, and hand sanitizers, as well as inadequate allowance
for social distancing, screening for symptoms and exposure to the
virus, testing of individuals with symptoms, and appropriate
quarantine and isolation facilities.
The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Da Graca, et al., Case
No. 20-2117, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, November 25, 2020.[BN]
Petitioners-Appellants GABRI DELAPAZ, KEITH WILLIAMS, EMMANUEL
LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, CONROY LEWIS, CYRIL NNADOZIE OKOLI, DARLIN ALBERTO
GUILLERMO, DIMITAR RUMENOV DASKALOV, EDSON MARTINS, FLAVIO
ANDRADE-PRADO, JR., FRED KAYITARE, JOAO AMADO, and AIRES DANIEL
BENROS DA GRACA are represented by:
Muneer I. Ahmad, Esq.
Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
Sara Michelle Zampierin, Esq.
YALE LAW SCHOOL
PO Box 209090
127 Wall St
New Haven, CT 06520-9090
Telephone: (203) 432-4800
E-mail: muneer.ahmad@yale.edu
michael.wishnie@yale.edu
- and -
Sameer Ahmed, Esq.
HARVARD IMMIGRATION & REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM
6 Everett St
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 384-0088
- and -
Rama S. Attreya, Esq.
Michael J. Brown, Esq.
John Joseph Butts, Esq.
Annaleigh Elizabeth Curtis, Esq.
Nicole M. Fontaine Dooley, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Driscoll, Esq.
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq.
Mikayla C. Foster, Esq.
Gary Barrington Howell-Walton, Esq.
Lisa Pirozzolo, Esq.
WILMERHALE LLP
60 State St
Boston, MA 02109-0000
Telephone: (617) 526-6347
E-mail: rama.attreya@wilmerhale.com
mike.brown@wilmerhale.com
john.butts@wilmerhale.com
annaleigh.curtis@wilmerhale.com
nicole.fontainedooley@wilmerhale.com
elizabeth.driscoll@wilmerhale.com
felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com
mikayla.foster@wilmerhale.com
gary.howell-walton@wilmerhale.com
lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Oren Nimni, Esq.
Oren McCleary Sellstrom, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
61 Batterymarch St., 5th Flr
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (206) 200-9088
Respondents-Appellees STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent Bristol
County House of Corrections in his Official Capacity; MATTHEW T.
ALBENCE, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior
Official performing the duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of the Boston Field Office of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and THOMAS M. HODGSON, in his
official capacity as Bristol County Sheriff, are represented by:
Thomas E. Kanwit, Esq.
Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq.
Michael P. Sady, Esq.
US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1 Courthouse Way, Ste 9200
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 748-3271
- and -
Christina Parascandola, Esq.
William C. Silvis, Esq.
US DEPT OF JUSTICE
PO Box 878
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0878
Interested Parties RICK RAEMISCH and JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES,
and all those similarly situated, are represented by:
William W. Fick, Esq.
FICK & MARX LLP
24 Federal St, 4th Flr
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 321-8360
E-mail: wfick@fickmarx.com
- and -
Muneer I. Ahmad, Esq.
Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
YALE LAW SCHOOL
PO Box 209090
127 Wall St
New Haven, CT 06520-9090
Telephone: (203) 432-4800
E-mail: muneer.ahmad@yale.edu
michael.wishnie@yale.edu
- and -
Rama S. Attreya, Esq.
Michael J. Brown, Esq.
John Joseph Butts, Esq.
Annaleigh Elizabeth Curtis, Esq.
Nicole M. Fontaine Dooley, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Driscoll, Esq.
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq.
Vinita Ferrera, Esq.
Mikayla C. Foster, Esq.
Gary Barrington Howell-Walton, Esq.
Lisa Pirozzolo, Esq.
WILMERHALE LLP
60 State St
Boston, MA 02109-0000
Telephone: (617) 526-6347
E-mail: rama.attreya@wilmerhale.com
mike.brown@wilmerhale.com
john.butts@wilmerhale.com
annaleigh.curtis@wilmerhale.com
nicole.fontainedooley@wilmerhale.com
elizabeth.driscoll@wilmerhale.com
felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com
vinita.ferrera@wilmerhale.com
mikayla.foster@wilmerhale.com
gary.howell-walton@wilmerhale.com
lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq.
Oren Nimni, Esq.
Oren McCleary Sellstrom, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
61 Batterymarch St., 5th Flr
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 482-1145
BSN SPORTS LLC: Romero Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BSN Sports, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-08311, (S.D. N.Y., October 6, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
BSN is a sports equipment manufacturer and retail company, and owns
and operates the website, www.bsnsports.com, that ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State. Romero is legally blind and claims that said website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
CABOT OIL: Del. County Employees' Fund Slams Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware County Employees Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cabot Oil
and Gas Corporation, Dan O. Dinges, Scott C. Schroeder, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-01815 (M.D. Pa., October 5, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Cabot is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
development, exploitation and exploration of oil and gas properties
exclusively in the continental United States. Cabot securities
trade in the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "COG."
Cabot allegedly failed to disclose that it had inadequate
environmental controls and procedures, failing to fix faulty gas
wells which polluted Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray
gas migration. Pennsylvania Attorney General charged Cabot with 15
criminal counts. On this news, Cabot common stock prices fell 12%.
Delaware County Employees Retirement System purchased Cabot common
stock and lost substantially upon corrective disclosures. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
SAXTON AND STUMP PA
280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Tel: (717) 556-1000
Fax: (717) 441-3810
Email: lfs@saxtonstump.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
Email: danim@rgrdlaw.com
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
CAMPING WORLD: Final Dismissal Order Entered in IUOE Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
entered an order of final dismissal on September 8, 2020 in
International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al.
On December 12, 2018, a putative class action complaint styled
International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al.
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common
stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of
such securities in October 2017.
The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of
its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material
facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks
compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgement
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including
rescission.
On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action. The parties argued the merits of the
defendants' motion to dismiss before the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Commercial Division, on September 6, 2019. The Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss on April
22, 2020.
On July 13, 2020, the parties entered into a confidential
settlement agreement resolving the named plaintiff's claims. The
putative class' claims were duplicative of certain claims in the
Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al. case, and thus were
included in the settlement agreement that the Ronge court-approved
at the settlement hearing on August 5, 2020.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the IUOE Complaint
with prejudice on August 6, 2020.
The Court entered an order of final dismissal on September 8,
2020.
Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
CAMPING WORLD: Parties in Geis Files Joint Stipulation to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties
in Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al., filed a
joint stipulation to dismiss on August 5, 2020.
On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016.
The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading
statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain
statements not misleading.
The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
and further relief the court deems just and proper.
On April 19, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.
The parties argued the merits of the defendants' motion to dismiss
before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division on August 20, 2019. On August 26, 2019, the Court stayed
the Geis Complaint pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint that is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The Geis plaintiff became a plaintiff in Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., and the Geis putative class's claims were
duplicative of certain claims in the Ronge case, and thus were
included in the settlement agreement that the Ronge court approved
on August 5, 2020.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the Geis Complaint
with prejudice on August 5, 2020.
Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Online Classes Inaccessible to Deaf, Kane Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL KANE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, INC. and STRATEGIC
EDUCATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05535-KAM-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2020) brings this class action complaint
against the Defendants to challenge their alleged failure to
provide reasonable disability accommodations required under the
Americans with Disability Act, the New York State Human Rights Law,
and the New York State Civil Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have knowingly and
intentionally denied him and other similarly situated person who
are deaf or hard of hearing the full and equal enjoyment of its
businesses, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations.
The Plaintiff is deaf and requires alternatives to audio in order
to access videos. While attempting to attend to the Defendants'
graduate program online classes, the Plaintiff has encountered
numerous barriers that interfered with his ability to access
classes which ultimately forced him to drop out.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants repeatedly and deliberately failed to
provide captions or other sufficient alternatives to audio for
videos used at Capella;
-- The Defendants failed to ensure that his access to Capella
classes is equal to that afforded to students without disabilities;
and
-- The Defendants discriminated him by failing to modify their
policies, procedures, and practices in a reasonable manner.
With the aforementioned unlawful conducts, the Defendants have
violated Title III of the ADA, which have inflicted injuries and
irreparable harm upon the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
deaf persons.
Capella University, Inc. is a for-profit corporation headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota that offers online courses to students
worldwide. It is owned by the publicly-traded Strategic Education,
Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Moshe Y. Singer, Esq.
SINGER LAW
2753 Coney Island Ave., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Tel: (929) 333-9630
Fax: (646) 783-0715
E-mail: msinger@mysingerlaw.com
- and –
Catherine Cabalo, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY,
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 766-3592
Fax: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Onn Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ONN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARNIVAL CORP. and MOUSEFLOW, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-07929-NC (N.D. Cal., November 10, 2020) is an action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of all people in
California whose electronic communications were intercepted through
the use of the Defendants' wiretap on carnival.com in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The complaint contends that the wiretap, which is embedded in the
JavaScript code of carnival.com, is used by the Defendants to
secretly observe and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse
clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of
personally identifiable information (PII) in real time.
Mr. Onn asserts that he has visited carnival.com many times, most
recently in or about August 2020 when he was in California. During
his visit to the Website, Mouseflow's software created a video
capturing his keystrokes and mouse clicks on the Website, as well
as his location and device type. All of this information was
intercepted in real time and was allegedly disclosed to Mouseflow.
Carnival Corp. is a Panama corporation with its headquarters in
Miami, Florida. Carnival owns and operates the Website,
carnival.com. The Company does business throughout California and
the entire United States.
Mouseflow, Inc. is a Texas corporation which provides an analytics
tool that tracks Website visitor behavior and generates recordings,
heatmaps, funnels, and form reports.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
CB RESTAURANTS: Martin Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CORRINA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CB RESTAURANTS, IN., d/b/a SUGAR'S
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, GLENN WILLIAMS, WILLIAM COX, and TERESA THOMPSON,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01334 (W.D. Tex.,
November 13, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of all current and former exotic dancers who worked for the
Defendants at Sugar's located in San Antonio, Texas any time
starting three years before the filing of this complaint.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants illegally classified him
and other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent
contractors when they actually paid house fees to dance at the
club. They were also required by the Defendants to share their tips
with other non-service employees who do not customarily receive
tips. After they have performed dances for customers, the
Defendants took a portion of their tips without recording in the
club's gross sales receipts and failed to distribute back to them.
Because the Defendants compensated them exclusively through tips
from their customers only, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated exotic dancers did not receive any payment for their hours
worked at the minimum wage rate required by the FLSA. Specifically,
the Plaintiff did not earn a single cent in minimum wage throughout
his employment with the Defendants.
CB Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a as Sugar's Gentlemen's Club, operates
an adult entertainment club. Glenn Williams is the President and
80% owner and manager of the company. Teresa Tompson is an officer
and 20% owner and manager of the company. William Cox is
responsible or corporate decision making at Sugar's as its business
consultant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Hodges, Esq.
Tina E. Gutierrez, Esq.
HODGES & FORTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
tgutierrez@hftrialfirm.com
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Still Ongoing in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by, Loop LLC
d/b/a AutoLoop.
Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop brought suit against CDK Global, LLC on
April 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, but reserved its rights with respect to remand to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin at the
conclusion of the MDL proceedings.
On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint to sue on behalf of
itself and a putative class action of all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds.
CDK Global, LLC moved to compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims,
or in the alternative, to dismiss those claims; that motion was
denied on January 25, 2019.
CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to AutoLoop's complaint and
asserted counterclaims against AutoLoop on February 15, 2019.
AutoLoop filed an answer to CDK Global, LLC's counterclaims on
March 8, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.
CELEBRITY CRUISES: Maglana Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ryan Maunes Maglana, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Maunes Maglana,
on his own behalf and as a class representative of all other
similarly situated Filipino crewmembers trapped aboard "Celebrity"
cruise vessels, Plaintiff, v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-22133-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages and equitable relief in the form of a mandatory
injunction requiring repatriation of Celebrity's Filipino
crewmembers, resulting from negligence under the Jones Act.
Ryan Maunes Maglana, is a citizen of the Philippines and works on
board Celebrity's vessel "Millennium" as a Beverage Controller. He
has worked with Celebrity for 14 years. He claims that Celebrity
unilaterally terminated his contract since the March 14th no-sail
Order of the Center for Disease Control due to the COVID-19
pandemic and stopped paying wages shortly thereafter. Maglana has
been held without wages since his contract was terminated by
Celebrity on March 30th.
The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Maglana, et al. v.
Celebrity Cruises, Inc., Case No. 20-14206, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief is due on or before December 16, 2020;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
November 20, 2020 as to Appellant Francis Karl Bugayong; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before December 4, 2020 as to Appellee Celebrity Cruises, Inc.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA, on his own behalf and as
a class representatives of all other similarly situated Filipino;
and FRANCIS KARL BUGAYONG, on his own behalf and as a class
representatives of all other similarly situated Filipino
crewmembers trapped aboard CELEBRITY cruise vessels, are
represented by:
Raul Gabriel Delgado, II, Esq.
DELGADO TRIAL ATTORNEYS
10631 N Kendall Drive, Suite 130
Miami, FL 33176
Telephone: (305) 596-7911
Facsimile: (305) 397-2654
Email: raul@cruiselawyermiami.com
- and -
Philip D. Parrish, Esq.
PHILIP D. PARRISH, PA
7301 SW 57th Ct Suite 430
Miami, FL 33143-5324
Telephone: (305) 670-5550
E-mail: phil@parrishappeals.com
Defendant-Appellee CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC. is represented by:
Annalisa Gutierrez, Esq.
Jerry Dean Hamilton, Esq.
HAMILTON MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP
150 SE 2nd Ave Fl 12
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 379-3686
E-mail: agutierrez@hamiltonmillerlaw.com
- and -
Scott Daniel Ponce, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
701 Brickell Ave Ste 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 789-7709
E-mail: Scott.Ponce@hklaw.com
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Merger Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. 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
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments
in September 2020, and a ruling is expected in late 2020 or early
2021.
On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren Corporation for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the
Merger Date, Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy.
With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana. These lawsuits alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the
grounds that the Vectren Proxy Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was
materially incomplete because it omitted material information
concerning the Merger.
In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint. In December 2018, two plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits.
In September 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed in October 2019.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral
arguments in September 2020, and a ruling is expected in late 2020
or early 2021.
The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised.
CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.
CHEMED CORP: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Re-set to Dec. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has
re-set the date for the final approval of the settlement hearing
for December 8, 2020.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement in March 2019 that
will resolve state-wide wage and hour class action claims raised in
four separate cases:
(1) Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity
unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number BC 642857;
(2) Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a
California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number
37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL;
(3) Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation
of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No.
34-2017-0021-2755; and
(4) Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, Alameda
County Superior Court Case No. RG 17853886 ("Williams").
These actions were brought by both current and former employees
including a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN),
home health aides and a social worker.
Each action stated multiple claims generally including (1) failure
to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide
overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all
hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5)
failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement
expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.
The cases generally asserted claims on behalf of classes defined to
include all current and former non-exempt employees employed with
VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of
each lawsuit.
The settlement amount of $5.75 million plus employment taxes was
recorded in the first quarter of 2019.
As of December 31, 2019, $6.0 million was accrued in the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. The definition of the
class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims
raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in
Phillips and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams.
On January 28, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
A notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to the members of
the class by the class claims administrator.
The court has re-set the date for the final approval of the
settlement hearing for December 8, 2020.
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Lax Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does
1 through 50 inclusive, have reached a settlement and are awaiting
court approval of the deal.
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Alfred Lax, a
former employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company filed a class
action lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court in November of
2018 alleging (1) failure to provide or compensate for required
rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay for all hours worked; (3)
failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) failure to
reimburse for work-related expenses; and (5) unfair business
practices.
Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as
all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
He sought a determination that the action may proceed and be
maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory
damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated
rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel
time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed
expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgement
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement in August 2020 to
resolve the allegations, for a settlement amount of $2.6
million-plus employment taxes.
The settlement includes technicians in its Menlo Park and Bristol
locations. The settlement was recorded in the third quarter of
2020.
As of September 30, 2020, $3.1 million was accrued in the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet.
A hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement was scheduled
for November 19, 2020.
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CINCINNATI CASUALTY: Midwest Insurance Suit Goes to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MIDWEST ORTHODONTIC ASSOCIATES, LTD, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY
COMPANY and THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2020 L
001271, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Madison
County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on November 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01167-GCS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff sued Cincinnati seeking a declaratory judgment
regarding Cincinnati's alleged insurance coverage obligations
relating to the recent COVID-19 outbreak and its detrimental
effects on the Plaintiff's business. The Plaintiff also seeks
damages based on Cincinnati's alleged breach of contract.
The Defendants operate as insurance firms in the United
States.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Reid, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
303 W. Madison St., Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 781-6617
Facsimile: (312) 781-6630
E-mail: reid@litchfieldcavo.com
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Assoc. in Periodontics Suit Goes to Vermont
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ASSOCIATES IN PERIODONTICS, PLC, Plaintiff v.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-11385, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Vermont on October 28, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Vermont assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00171-wks to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's denial of coverage for
losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company provides insurance products and
underwriting services. The Company offers business, personal, life,
annuities, and property insurance services. Cincinnati Insurance
serves clients in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Moskowitz , Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
- and -
Gregory A. Weimer, Esq.
KIRKPATRICK & GOLDSBOROUGH, PLLC
1233 Shelburne Road, Suite E-1
South Burlington, VT 05403
Telephone: (802) 651-0960
Facsimile: (802) 651-0964
E-mail: gweimer@vtlawfirm.com
- and -
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
- and -
John J. Reilly, Esq.
Lawrence E. Bathgate, II, Esq.
Ryan M. Farrell, Esq.
BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF
One Airport Road
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Telephone: (732) 363-0666
Facsimile: (732) 363-9864
- and -
William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP PA
777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-1000
The Defendant is represented by:
Shapleigh Smith, Jr., Esq.
DINSE
209 Battery Street, P.O. Box 988
Burlington, VT 05402-0988
Telephone: (802) 864-5751
Facsimile: (802) 864-1960
E-mail: ssmith@dinse.com
- and -
Kathleen J. Collins, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 854-3636
CITIGROUP INC: Facing City of Sunrise Firefighter's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit entitled, CITY OF SUNRISE
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL.
On October 30, 2020, a putative class action complaint captioned
CITY OF SUNRISE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET
AL., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Citigroup and certain of its officers
or former officers, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
defendants' alleged misstatements concerning Citigroup’s internal
controls.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs.
Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
CLUB COLORS: Garcia Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
OTILIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB COLORS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2020L001330 (Ill. 18th Jud. Cir. Ct., November 18, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to
put a stop to its unlawful practice of collecting and using
employees' sensitive biometric data in violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant through February 2019,
alleges that the Defendant violated his and other similarly
situated employees' rights to privacy for collecting, storing, and
using their biometric identifiers and biometric information by
requiring them to scan their fingerprints in its biometric time
tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only
key fobs or other identification cards.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to comply with BIPA
mandates by failing to:
-- obtain written releases from him and other employees before
it collected, used, and stored their biometric identifiers and
biometric information;
-- inform them in writing that their biometric identifiers and
biometric information were being collected and stored, and the
specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric
identifiers or biometric information was being collected, stored,
and used; and
-- publicly provide a retention schedule or guideline for
permanently destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and
biometric information.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief by requiring the Defendant to
comply with the BIPA's requirements for the collection, storage,
and use of biometric information, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and expenses.
Club Colors, Inc. specializes in creating and manufacturing
promotional products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630) 355-7590
Fax: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Walker Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE WALKER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02218-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., November 13, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant began placing calls to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (904) 405-XXXX
approximately one year ago in an attempt to reach someone other
than the Plaintiff. The Defendant allegedly used an automatic
telephone dialing system, and an artificial or prerecorded voice to
place non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone services without obtaining prior express
consent.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff has
suffered actual harm, such as invasion of privacy, an intrusion
into her life, and a private nuisance.
CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: (619) 222-7429
E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com
- and –
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
401 Congress Ave., Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 803-1578
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Brittain Sues Over COVID-19 Tuition Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC S. BRITTAIN, KAELA MEI-CHEE CHAMBERS, JOANNA CHRISTINA CORTEZ,
ANTONIO RATTES DE FARIAS, CAITLIN FERRELL, KATHRYN MILLER, GRACE A.
PHILIPS, BRADLEY M. PITTS, AVA RAVICH, ANA I. DOW SILVA, JACLYN E.
TODD, DONOVAN TOLLEDO, and RICARDO J. VARONA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRUSTEES OF
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No.
1:20-cv-09194-PKC (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2020) seeks damages or
restitution of tuition and fees paid to the Defendant with respect
to the spring semester of 2020 and any other period during which
the Plaintiffs and the class pay tuition and fees but did not
receive the full value of the services for which they paid.
The Plaintiffs were students enrolled in the Columbia Graduate
School of the Arts pursuing courses of graduate study in visual and
sound art and in film. On March 15, 2020, the University notified
the Columbia community that increased measures were necessary to
respond to the rising health risks posed by the Coronavirus
pandemic. Thus, the Columbia administration suspended in-person
learning and moved all classes on-line using Zoom or similar
platforms.
According to the complaint, for certain disciplines online learning
can be an effective substitute for in-person learning but not in
the case with visual art, sound art, or film. By their nature,
education in these fields requires physical presence in studios and
production facilities, close coordination with instructors and
others such as mentors, peers, and critics in the case of visual
and sound art, and actors and production personnel in the case of
film, as well as access both to the physical studio and production
spaces and to the specialized equipment used to produce artwork in
these fields.
The Plaintiffs seek recovery in this case for breach by the
Defendant of its explicit promises made concerning and in
connection with their courses of study, including but not limited
to promises of studio-based, hands-on education in visual art and
sound art, and skills-based learning predicated on the actual
production of film in the course of film study.
Defendant Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
is a private university operating in the city of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin E. Karlinsky, Esq.
Bonnie H. Walker, Esq.
KARLINSKY LLC
103 Mountain Road
Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY 12520
Telephone: (646) 437-1430
E-mail: martin.karlinsky@karlinskyllc.com
bonnie.walker@karlinskyllc.com
COMMUNITY NURSING: Illegally Collects Biometric Info, Smith Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Community Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Case
No. 2020L001285 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., November 6, 2020) arises
from the Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) after it illegally collected,
stored, and used the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent.
The Defendant has implemented biometric scanners in Illinois to
track time and attendance of employees, and/or in in furtherance of
their role in operating, managing, conducting or directing the
business interests, in an effort to combat time and attendance
fraud and/or for other purposes of advancing Community Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center's commercial interests.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is violating BIPA in
collecting and storing the biometric information of persons
employed that utilize biometric scanners, as they are not first
informing employees including the Plaintiff in writing that their
biometric information is or will be collected and stored; they are
not first informing employees in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which their respective biometric identifiers
or biometric information will be collected, stored, and/or used;
nor are they first securing written releases from each respective
employee.
Community Nursing & Rehabilitation Center LLC, doing business as
Arista Healthcare, provides nursing and rehabilitative services.
The Company offers pulmonary respiratory therapy, dialysis,
short-term rehabilitation, long term and medically complex care
services. Arista Healthcare serves patients in the State of
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
COMPUTER CREDIT: Faces Chatman FDCA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
et al. The case is styled as Celetha Chatman, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Computer Credit, Inc. and Rush
Oak Park Hospital, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06523 (N.D. Ill.,
November 3, 2020).
The case arises over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act. The case is assigned to Honorable Charles P. Kocoras.
Based in North Carolina, Computer Credit, Inc. handles revenue
services and collections for health care organizations and
physician groups across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael William Drew, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 967-7220
E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com
CONNECTICUT: Taylor Appeals Ruling in Prisoners Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Derrick Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Tre McPherson, Pattikate Williams-Void,
John Doe, John Roe, and Thomas Caves, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Ned Lamont and Rollin Cook, in
their individual capacities, Case No. 20-cv-534, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit
alleges violation of civil rights laws. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton.
The appellate case is captioned as McPherson v. Lamont, Case No.
20-3871, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, November 12, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Tre McPherson, Pattikate Williams-Void, John
Doe, John Roe, Thomas Caves, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Jonathan S. Tam, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
1 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 262-4518
E-mail: jonathan.tam@dechert.com
Movant-Appellant Derrick Taylor, of Cheshire Correctional
Institution, in Cheshire, Connecticut, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees Ned Lamont and Rollin Cook, in their
individual capacities, are represented by:
Edward David Rowley, Esq.
CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 808-5450
E-mail: edward.rowley@ct.gov
Intervenor Rupert A. Thompson, of Hartford Correctional Center, in
Harford, Connecticut, appears pro se.
CORECIVIC INC: Court Certifies Class in Immigration Detainees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, 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 district court
certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and
current detainees at all CoreCivic ICE detention facilities.
On May 31, 2017, two former Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa
Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class
action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.
The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform
labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal
anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program
("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage law.
ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in
conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate
of pay for VWP participants.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees.
On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide
anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees at
all CoreCivic ICE detention facilities.
It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees
at the Company's ICE detention facilities in California.
The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or declaratory
relief. Since this case was initially filed, three similar lawsuits
have been filed in other courts in California, Texas and Georgia.
The Company disputes these allegations and intends to take all
necessary steps to vigorously defend itself against all claims.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based
in Nashville, Tennessee.
CORECIVIC INC: Trial in Grae Class Suit Set for May 2021
--------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, 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 trial before
United States District Judge Aleta Trauger is scheduled for May
2021 in the Middle District of Tennessee, in Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.
In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons dated August 18,
2016, the Department of Justice directed that, as each contract
with privately operated prisons reaches the end of its term, the
BOP should either decline to renew that contract or substantially
reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and the overall
decline of the BOP's inmate population.
In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ
memorandum cites purported operational, programming, and cost
efficiency factors as reasons for the DOJ directive. On February
21, 2017, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General issued a
memorandum rescinding the DOJ's prior directive stating the
memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice and impaired
the BOP's ability to meet the future needs of the federal
correctional system.
Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed on August 23,
2016 against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (the "District Court"), captioned Grae v.
Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016. The Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and costs incurred in connection with the
lawsuit. In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this
timeframe, the Company's public statements were false and/or
misleading regarding the purported operational, programming, and
cost efficiency factors cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a
result, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated. The
lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of the Company's stock to decline, thereby causing harm to
the putative class of shareholders.
On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2019, the District Court certified
the class proposed by the plaintiff. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's appeal of the
class certification order on August 23, 2019. The case is
currently in the discovery phase of litigation.
A trial before United States District Judge Aleta Trauger is
scheduled for May 2021 in the Middle District of Tennessee.
CoreCivic believes the lawsuit is entirely without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it.
CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based
in Nashville, Tennessee.
CORELOGIC INC: Credco Faces Fernandez Suit Over Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that CoreLogic Credco,
LLC is defending against a putative class action suit initiated by
Marco Fernandez.
In June 2020, Credco was named as a defendant in Marco Fernandez v.
CoreLogic Credco, LLC, a putative class action lawsuit filed in
California Superior Court in San Diego County.
The named plaintiff alleges that Credco provided a lender with a
consumer report about him that erroneously indicated he is on the
Office of Foreign Asset Control's list of Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons ("OFAC List").
He further alleges that Credco failed to provide him with a copy of
the OFAC List designation upon request, failed to notify him of
what entities had received such a notification in the past, and
failed to respond to his effort to dispute the item.
He seeks to represent three classes and four subclasses based upon
these allegations, and asserts seven claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and
California's Unfair Competition law.
The Company has removed the case to the US District Court for the
Southern District of California, and intends to vigorously defend
itself in the litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.
CORELOGIC INC: Feb 23 Final Approval Hearing on Feliciano Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that settlement in
Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, has been
preliminarily approved by the District Court, and a final approval
hearing is scheduled for February 23, 2021.
In July 2017, Rental Property Solutions, LLC ("RPS") was named as a
defendant in Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent,
LLC, a putative class action lawsuit in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed.
On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports
issued during the period of July 2015 to the present.
In July 2019, the District Court issued an order certifying a class
of approximately 2,000 consumers.
In June 2020, we reached an agreement to resolve the case.
The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the District
Court, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for February 23,
2021.
The settlement amount was recorded during the quarter ended June
30, 2020.
CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.
CORELOGIC INC: RPS Defending Against Brown Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that CoreLogic Rental
Property Solutions, LLC, is defending against a putative class
action suit initiated by Terry Brown.
In May 2020, Rental Property was named as a defendant in Terry
Brown v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC, a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about him that included a sex offender record that
did not relate to him.
He seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated consumers, as well as a
subclass of consumers for whom misattributed sex offender records
were removed following a dispute.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.
CRESCENT CAPITAL: Dismissal of Suits Against Alcentra Final
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the dismissal of
each class action complaint initiated against Alcentra Capital is
final.
On or about December 23, 2019, stockholders of Alcentra Capital
filed two virtually identical stockholder class action complaints
purportedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of Alcentra
Capital against the members of Alcentra Capital's board of
directors and certain former Alcentra Capital officers, in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the public
stockholders of Alcentra Capital by commencing a sales process
allegedly in response to certain actions by Stilwell Value Partners
VII, Stilwell Activist Fund, Stilwell Activist Investments, and
Stilwell Associates, and by omitting allegedly material information
concerning the transaction, the resignation of certain directors of
Alcentra, and the financial analysis and fairness opinion of
Houlihan Lokey from the joint proxy statement filed with the SEC on
December 11, 2019 as part of the registration statement relating to
the Alcentra Acquisition.
The complaints sought to recover compensatory damages for alleged
losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The company assumed indemnification responsibilities owed by
Alcentra to its former directors and officers with respect to this
proceeding in connection with the Alcentra Acquisition and, in
April 2020, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed both
stockholder class action complaints.
The plaintiffs in both cases did not timely file an appeal to the
decision of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City and as a
consequence the dismissal of each class action complaint is final.
Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. is a specialty finance company focused
on lending to middle-market companies and were incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware on February 5, 2015
("Inception"). On January 30, 2020, the changed its state of
incorporation from the State of Delaware to the State of Maryland.
The company had elected to be treated as a BDC under the 1940 Act.
The company is based in Los Angeles, California.
CUMULUS MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media 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
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit related to the
Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan, is pending.
On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims regarding the
Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan.
The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and
retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and
costs than other available investment options, causing participants
in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any
judgment.
On May 28, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and will continue to defend the case vigorously.
The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what effect
the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.
Cumulus Media Inc., an audio-first media and entertainment company,
owns and operates radio stations in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Cumulus Radio Station Group and Westwood One.
The company offers content through approximately 428
owned-and-operated stations in 87 United States media markets; and
approximately 8,000 broadcast radio stations affiliates and various
digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and
is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
DECATUR, GA: Malone Appeals Civil Rights Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Samantha Malone, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SAMANTHA MALONE, HOLLY
KIMMONS, MARK BLEDSOE, ANDY FENNELL, and TRAVIS MOSELY, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
DECATUR, ALABAMA; EMILY BAGGETT; CHRISTY MILLER; UNIVERSAL HEALTH
SERVICES, INC.; and PROFESSIONAL PROBATION SERVICES, Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00483-LCB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.
The Plaintiffs allege that the City of Decatur contracted with
Professional Probation Services (PPS) to provide probation services
to the Municipal Court. When an individual appearing before the
Municipal Court is assessed fines or costs and cannot pay them in
full, the Municipal Court orders that individual to serve a
suspended sentence and places the individual on probation with PPS
for a number of months. According to the Plaintiffs, each month
that an indigent defendant is on PPS-administered probation, the
Municipal Court requires the defendant to pay a specified amount
toward his fine and a $35.00 supervision fee to PPS. The Plaintiffs
allege that when an individual cannot make one of the monthly
payments, PPS alerts the Municipal Court, and the Municipal Court
initiates probation revocation proceedings. The Municipal Court
charges individuals who cannot make a monthly payment with
violation of their probation, increases the length of the term of
probation, and imposes additional fees and fines.
The Plaintiffs allege that they were incarcerated under this scheme
for failure to pay the fees charged by PPS. They also allege that
the City, through its contract with PPS, "has affected hundreds of
low income people who were issued traffic tickets and/or arrested
for misdemeanors." In their second amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs assert the following claims on behalf of themselves and
a potential class of similarly situated individuals: violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment against the City of Decatur; violation of
the Fourth Amendment against the City of Decatur, Ms. Baggett, and
Ms. Miller; violation of the Sixth Amendment against the City of
Decatur, Ms. Baggett, and Ms. Miller; false imprisonment against
the City of Decatur, Ms. Baggett, and Ms. Miller; RICO violations
against Universal Health Services, Inc. and PPS; and abuse of
process against PPS.
The appellate case is captioned as Samantha Malone, et al. v. City
of Decatur, Alabama, et al., Case No. 20-14227, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SAMANTHA MALONE, HOLLY KIMMONS, MARK BLEDSOE,
ANDY FENNELL, and TRAVIS MOSELY, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, are represented by:
Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
Lee David Winston, Esq.
WINSTON COOKS, LLC
505 20th St N Suite 815
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 502-0970
E-mail: rcooks@winstoncooks.com
lwinston@winstoncooks.com
- and -
Terrinell Lyons, Esq.
LYONS LAW FIRM, INC.
612 S Court St
Florence, AL 35630
Telephone: (256) 768-0340
E-mail: terrinelllyons@aol.com
- and -
Byron R. Perkins, Esq.
PERKINS LAW, LLC
950 22 St N Suite 825
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 902-3328
E-mail: bperkins@perkins-law.com
- and -
Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
301 19th St N
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
Facsimile: (205) 314-0740
E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com
Defendants-Appellees CITY OF DECATUR, ALABAMA, A Municipality; and
PROFESSIONAL PROBATION SERVICES INC, A business entity wholly owned
subsidiary of Universal Health Services Inc., are represented by:
David J. Canupp, Esq.
George W. Royer, Jr., Esq.
LANIER FORD SHAVER & PAYNE, PC
2101 W Clinton Ave Ste 102
Huntsville, AL 35805
Telephone: (256) 535-1100
E-mail: djc@lanierford.com
gwr@lanierford.com
- and -
Brad A. Chynoweth, Esq.
Steven Marshall, Esq.
ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
501 Washington Ave
PO Box 300152
Montgomery, AL 36130
Telephone: (334) 242-7300
E-mail: brad.chynoweth@alabamaag.gov
smarshall@ago.state.al.us
- and -
Allison Rae Bendall, Esq.
Bryan Andrew Grayson, Esq.
Devon Kehres Rankin, Esq.
Stephen E. Whitehead, Esq.
LLOYD GRAY WHITEHEAD & MONROE, PC
880 Montclair Rd Ste 100
Birmingham, AL 35213
Telephone: (205) 967-8822
E-mail: abendall@lgwmlaw.com
bgrayson@lgwmlaw.com
drankin@lgwmlaw.com
steve@lgwmlaw.com
DELEK US: Cypress & Kestrel Can Intervene in Becker FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL J. BECKER, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DELEK US ENERGY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00285 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A.
Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the separate Motions to
Intervene filed by Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, LLC and
Kestrel Field Services, Inc.
The case is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Becker, joined by at least one
opt-in Plaintiff, commenced a lawsuit against Defendant Delek,
seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages.
The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on April 1, 2020. He alleges that
Delek, a downstream energy company with refineries and retail
stores throughout the south and southwest United States, employed
him as an inspector from September 2018 until November 2018. He
alleges that, although he and other similarly situated individuals
regularly worked 12 to 15 hours per day, six to seven days per
week, and were paid a flat sum for each day worked, regardless of
the number of hours worked that day (or in that work week), they
did not receive pay at the overtime rate required by the FLSA for
all work in excess of forty hours per work week.
The Plaintiff specifically alleges that Delek was his employer and
that it controlled all of the significant or meaningful aspects of
his job duties, enforced mandatory compliance with Delek's policies
and procedures, and directly determined Becker's rates of pay, his
work schedule, and prohibited him from working other jobs for other
companies while he was working for Delek.
A week after the Complaint was filed, Becker filed a Notice that
Freddy Rojas had submitted his consent to opt in as a party
Plaintiff in the case.
An Initial Case Management Order was entered on June 1, 2020,
setting dates for the amendment of pleadings, the filing of a
motion for conditional class certification, and the conclusion of
discovery.
The Plaintiff filed his timely Motion for Conditional Certification
and Court-Authorized Notice to putative collective-action members
on June 12, 2020. On July 9, 2020, while briefing on that motion
was ongoing, Cypress filed its Motion to Intervene and supporting
Memorandum of Law. Kestrel filed its Motion to Intervene and
Memorandum of Law the next day. The Court thereafter stayed
discovery and briefing on the Motion for Conditional Certification
pending resolution of the Motions to Intervene. The Plaintiff
filed Responses in opposition to both motions; Cypress and Kestrel
filed Replies.
Cypress argues that it should be granted leave to intervene as of
right under Rule 24(a), because the motion is timely; it has a
substantial legal interest in this case; disposition of the cases
in its absence would impair its interests; and its interests are
not adequately represented by Delek. In the alternative, it
contends that permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is
warranted.
Judge Trauger concludes that Cypress has established each of the
factors necessary for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a).
The Judge finds that (i) Cypress' motion is timely, and such that
intervention will not prejudice the litigants' rights or unduly
delay the proceedings; (ii) the potential that Delek may point a
finger at Cypress as a joint or even sole employer and the FLSA's
provision for joint and several liability among joint employers
together give rise to a substantial legal interest on the part of
Cypress in the action; (iii) Cypress' reputation might be impaired
by litigation against Delek, standing alone, would not be
sufficient to justify intervention under Rule 24(a); and (iv)
although Delek's and Cypress' interests are clearly similar, there
is at least a possibility that they will diverge. The Judge
granted Cypress' motion on that basis, without reaching Cypress'
arguments for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
Kestrel's Motion to Intervene and supporting Memorandum are
directed toward the claims of opt-in Plaintiff Rojas, whose opt-in
notice was filed just six days after the Complaint was filed.
Kestrel's arguments are virtually indistinguishable from those
asserted by Cypress, except that Kestrel also filed in connection
with its motion a copy of the Master Work Agreement ("MWA") entered
into by and between Kestrel and Delek governing the work to be
performed for Delek by Kestrel employees, such as Rojas.
Otherwise, like Cypress, Kestrel articulates the relevant standards
for intervention under Rule 24(a) and argues that: (1) the motion
is timely; (2) it has protectable interests at stake in the
litigation; (3) its interests may be impaired if it is not
permitted to intervene; and (4) Delek may not adequately represent
its interests. Its arguments under each of these categories are
largely the same as those posited by Cypress, but it includes some
additional arguments.
The Judge concludes that Kestrel has established a right to
intervene under Rule 24(a), for the same reasons as those discussed
in connection with Cypress' motion, amplified by the
indemnification provision in the MWA. The Judge granted Kestrel's
motion as well on that basis, without addressing its arguments
under Rule 24(b).
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yytuu2kx from Leagle.com.
DEPOSITORS INSURANCE: Arvans ICFA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN ARVANS, Plaintiff v. DEPOSITORS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2020-CH-05342, was removed from the
Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 4, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06570 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of himself and as the
representative of a putative class of Illinois resident auto
policyholders, arising from the failure of the Defendant to provide
fair and appropriate insurance premium relief to its policyholders
in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA).
Depositors Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers powersports equipment, home, auto, personal
protection, and life insurance services. Depositors Insurance
serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan M. Cyrluk, Esq.
Steven C. Moeller, Esq.
Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP
180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2105
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 777-4820
Facsimile: (312) 777-4839
E-mail: cyrluk@carpenterlipps.com
moeller@carpenterlipps.com
- and -
Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
280 Plaza, Suite 1300
280 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-4100
Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com
- and -
Aneca E. Lasley, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
2000 Huntington Center
41 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-2700
Facsimile: (614) 365-2499
E-mail: Aneca.Lasley@squirepb.com
- and -
Petrina A. McDaniel, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
1230 Peachtree St NE, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 272-3207
E-mail: Petrina.McDaniel@squirepb.com
DESERT STATES: Koch Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Koch, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension
Plan; Board of Trustees of the Desert States Employers & UFCW
Unions Pension Plan, Plan Administrator of the Desert States
Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan; Ian Adams, Trustee of the
Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan; Stan Chavira,
Trustee of the Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan;
Teresa D'Asaro, Trustee of the Desert States Employers & UFCW
Unions Pension Plan; Greg Frazier, Trustee of the Desert States
Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan; Jacqueline Jones, Trustee of
the Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan; Janet
Lucero, Trustee of the Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions
Pension Plan; Danny K. Ma, Trustee of the Desert States Employers &
UFCW Unions Pension Plan; James J. McLaughlin, Trustee of the
Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan; Kaitlyn
Sullivan, Trustee of the Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions
Pension Plan; Leroy D. Westmoreland, Trustee of the Desert States
Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02187-DJH (D. Ariz., November 13, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff under the Employee Income Security Act of
1974 for benefits; to declare his rights under the terms of the
Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan; and to enforce
his rights and remedy violations of the plan and ERISA.
Mr. Koch alleges that when he started receiving retirement benefits
several years after attainment of normal retirement age, the
Defendants failed to pay him that portion of his non-forfeitable
vested retirement benefits attributable to the years following his
attainment of normal retirement age to account for the delay past
his Normal Retirement Date. He contends on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, inter alia, that on several
occasions, the Defendants adopted and imposed and continue to
impose amendments that violate ERISA by purporting to restrict the
scope of employment that retired participants may engage in both
before and after attainment of normal retirement age; that they
breached their fiduciary duties and duties of disclosure and failed
to maintain and follow reasonable claims procedures.
From in or around 1971 to the present, the Plaintiff was employed
by various grocery store employers under collective bargaining
agreements between those employers and Local 99 of Union of Food
and Commercial Workers pursuant to which employers contributed to
the Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions Pension Plan and
predecessor plans.
Defendant Plan is a defined benefit employee pension benefit plan
within the meaning of Section 3(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1002(2), which was established and maintained for the purpose of
providing retirement benefits for participants and their
beneficiaries, including Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Michael M. Licata, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
mlicata@martinbonnett.com
DHI GROUP: Final Judgment Approving Douglas Settlement Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
DHI Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that final judgment
approving the settlement in the class action suit initiated by Ian
Douglas, was entered on July 24, 2020.
A lawsuit was brought by Ian Douglas, individually, as a
representative of the class and on behalf of the general public,
against DHI Group, Inc. and Dice Inc. asserting six claims under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA") that the Company's Open
Web profiles are "consumer reports" and Dice is a "consumer
reporting agency" under the FCRA, including claims pursuant to the
private right of action in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n for alleged
willful violations of the FCRA.
The action was originally filed in a federal district court on July
26, 2017, but as a part of the settlement process, the action was
re-filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California
(Case No. 18CV331732).
The recorded liability reflected a settlement, which was subject to
a final judgment, and was paid in the third quarter of 2019.
The settlement resolved all remaining claims subject to the
lawsuit, and final judgment approving the settlement was entered on
July 24, 2020.
DHI Group, Inc. provides data, insights, and employment connections
through specialized services for technology professionals in the
United States and internationally. The company was formerly known
as Dice Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to DHI Group, Inc. in
April 2015. DHI Group, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. A-20-824304-C (D. Nev., November 5, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime compensation and to
timely pay all wages due and owing to the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, in violations of the Nevada Constitution and
the Nevada Revised Statutes.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver at the Domino's location in Las Vegas, Nevada from on or
about May 2019 to on or about August 13, 2020.
Domino's Pizza operates a network of company-owned and franchise
Domino's Pizza stores, located throughout the United States and in
other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Christian Gabroy, Esq.
Kaine Messer, Esq.
GABROY LAW OFFICES
The District at Green Valley Ranch
170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
Henderson, NV 89012
Telephone: (702) 259-7777
Facsimile: (702) 259-7704
E-mail: christian@gabroy.com
kmesser@gabroy.com
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Piersing Takes Antitrust Suit Ruling to High Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Derek Piersing filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
DEREK PIERSING, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Petitioner v. DOMINO'S PIZZA FRANCHISING LLC; DOMINO'S
PIZZA MASTER ISSUER LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; and DOMINO'S PIZZA,
INC., Respondents, Case No. 20-695.
Response is due on December 21, 2020.
Petitioner Derek Piersing filed this petition to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in the case titled HARLEY BLANTON, Plaintiff, DEREK
PIERSING, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA FRANCHISING LLC; DOMINO'S
PIZZA MASTER ISSUER LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-2388.
The question presented is: In the context of a form employment
agreement, is providing that a particular set of rules will govern
arbitration proceedings, without more, "clear and unmistakable
evidence" of the parties' intent to have the arbitrator decide
questions of arbitrability?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 17,
2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order granting the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.
Domino's has thousands of pizza restaurants across the country.
Like other large chains, Domino's operates many of these
restaurants through a franchise model. Each franchise is an
independently owned and managed business with a separate legal
identity. But it still controls certain aspects of each franchise.
Relevant in the case, Domino's allegedly required its franchises to
agree not to solicit or hire employees from other franchises
without the prior consent of their employer.
Piersing began working at a Domino's franchise in Washington state
in the fall of 2014. Four years later, Piersing sought a second job
from a different Domino's franchise in the area. When he was hired
by the second franchise, Piersing signed an arbitration agreement,
which requires him to arbitrate a wide array of issues related to
his employment. The agreement also specifies that the arbitration
will be conducted according to the American Arbitration Association
National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes ("AAA
Rules").
Around the same time, Piersing learned that he had been fired from
the first franchise. According to Piersing, the store fired him
because it thought that its franchise agreement with Domino's
required it to do so in order to allow him to work at the second
franchise. Piersing worked at the second franchise for a few months
until he left his job because of a medical condition. Piersing and
another Plaintiff then filed a class action against Domino's,
alleging that the company's franchise agreement violated federal
antitrust law as well as state law. Domino's soon moved to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Plaintiffs
opposed the motion, arguing that Domino's couldn't enforce the
arbitration agreements because the company hadn't signed the
agreements (only their franchises had). But the district court
ordered the Plaintiffs to go to arbitration anyway, finding that
both Piersing and his co-Plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate not only
the merits of certain claims but also threshold questions about the
agreements themselves. The appeal followed.
Domino's argues about the correct choice of law. Judge Amul Roger
Thapar, writing for the Sixth Circuit, holds that Washington courts
have found that the incorporation of the AAA Rules (or similarly
worded arbitral rules) provide "clear and unmistakable" evidence
that the parties agreed to arbitrate "arbitrability." And Piersing
hasn't give any reason to think that the Washington Supreme Court
would ultimately adopt the minority view in the debate. So in the
end, the choice of law makes no difference.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Derek Piersing, on Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Leah Marie Nicholls, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
1620 L Street, N.W. Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 797-8600
E-mail: LNicholls@publicjustice.net
DONERIGHT CUSTOM: Gatlin Sues Over Unpaid OT, Race Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC GATLIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
DONERIGHT CUSTOM PAINTING, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and PASQUALE SAVAGE, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-24797
(S.D. Fla., November 20, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the federal law
by failing to pay him time and one-half wages for all of his actual
overtime hours worked each week and by engaging in intentional
discrimination by terminating his employment because of his Black
race.
The Plaintiff regularly worked as a non-exempt painter and laborer
between approximately November 2017 and March 2020.
Doneright Custom Painting, LLC owns and operates a residential and
commercial painting and pressure cleaning business in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
- and -
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HAZEL SOLIS ROJAS, P.A.
3105 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 400
Doral, FL 33172
Telephone: (305) 558-8402
Facsimile: (305) 504-8953
E-mail: hazel@solisrojaslaw.com
DONNA KARAN: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Burbon Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
THE DONNA KARAN COMPANY STORE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05659
(E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure
to design and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that during his visits to the Website,
www.donnakaran.com, the last occurring in October 2020, in an
attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, he encountered
multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to
the services offered to the public and made available to the
public; and that denied him the full enjoyment of the services of
the Website by being unable to learn about products such as
clothing, shoes, glasses, brushes, fragrances, and other products
available online for purchase, and to ascertain information
relating to pricing, ordering merchandise and return and privacy
policies.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination, which is particularly acute during the
current COVID-19 global pandemic, and seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Donna Karan Company Store LLC operates the Donna Karan online
service Website across the United States. The Website provides
consumers with access to an array of services including information
about purchasing products such as clothing, shoes, glasses,
brushes, fragrances, and other products available online for
purchase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Telephone: (646) 770-3775
Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com
- and -
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
DOW CHEMICAL: Guidry Appeals E.D. La. Ruling to Fifth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sheila Guidry, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SHEILA GUIDRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ET AL. v. DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-CV-12233, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 16,
2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has denied a request to compel jurisdictional discovery in the
suit.
The case is a toxic chemical class action lawsuit removed to the
Louisiana Eastern District Court for a second time in 10 years in
August 2019. On Sept. 19, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice
the plaintiffs' motion to remand and ordered jurisdictional
discovery directed to determining class size in the case removed
predicated on the Court's Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction.
When the plaintiffs requested a stay of the Court's September 19,
2019 Order pending their request for permission to appeal, on
October 23, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
request: the motion was granted as to the plaintiffs' obligation to
affirmatively conduct a sworn claims process within 90 days and
denied insofar as the plaintiffs were ordered to provide defendants
any information in their possession bearing on class size and
amount-in-controversy. The Fifth Circuit ultimately denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.
Ostensibly in an attempt to comply with the Court's orders, on
November 5, 2019, plaintiffs' counsel wrote to defendants' counsel
to advise that "it has 2,774 clients who have sought our
representation with regard to complaints of deleterious effects
from the release at issue. We have internal paperwork and work
product pertaining to those individuals, which we presume is
privileged, but which would not shed any light on other potential
class members."
Counsel for defendants replied to plaintiffs' counsel on November
8, 2019 that "this does not satisfy [the district court's] order."
Counsel for defendants then identified specific categories of
information it seeks from plaintiffs to inform the class size
question, including notices published or mailed to potential class
members, efforts to contact class members, proof of claim forms,
identification of individuals seeking representation, medical
records of any potential class member. Counsel for defendants
requested a privilege log insofar as the plaintiffs invoke
attorney-client privilege over any otherwise responsive material.
Finally, counsel for defendants sought input regarding a proposed
motion to approve public notice or proof of claim process it
intended to file. Counsel participated in a Rule 37 conference but
failed to reach an agreement.
The appellate case is captioned as Sheila Guidry, et al. v. Dow
Chemical Company, et al., Case No. 20-90043, in the US Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Sheila Guidry, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Ramona Alexander; Henry Holmes;
Bates Whiteside; and Vanessa Wilson are represented by:
Ron A. Austin, Esq.
Catherine Hilton, Esq.
RON AUSTIN LAW
400 Manhattan Boulevard
Harvey, LA 70058
Telephone: (504) 227-8100
E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com
chilton@ronaustinlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey P. Berniard, Esq.
BERNIARD LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
643 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 527-6225
- and -
Gregory P. DiLeo, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY P. DILEO, A.P.L.C.
300 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130-0000
Telephone: (504) 522-3456
- and -
John Bartholomew Kelly, III, Esq.
ALVENDIA, KELLY & DEMAREST, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 200-0000
Defendants-Respondents Dow Chemical Company, Department of
Environmental Quality State of Louisiana, and Union Carbide
Corporation are represented by:
David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Esq.
BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO, VIATOR & HOLINGA, A.P.L.L.C.
4210 Bluebonnet Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 388-5600
E-mail: david.bienvenu@bblawla.com
- and -
Peter S. Koeppel, Esq.
KOEPPEL CLARK TURNER
2030 Saint Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 598-1000
- and -
Dennis J. Phayer, Esq.
BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY, L.L.C.
5213 Airline Drive
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 832-0412
- and -
Neil C. Abramson, Esq.
LISKOW & LEWIS, P.L.C.
701 Poydras Street
Hancock Whitney Center
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 581-7979
E-mail: blamy@liskow.com
- and -
Mark Charles Dodart, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
365 Canal Street, 1 Canal Place
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 566-1311
E-mail: mark.dodart@phelps.com
DULUTH, MN: Jorgensen Sues Over Inmates' Rights
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B. Birkholz, et al.
The case is styled as Dwight Jorgensen and Paxton Anderson,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners v. B. Birkholz, Warden of Federal Prison Camp Duluth,
and Michael Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in
their official capacities, Respondents, Case No.
0:20-cv-02349-NEB-DTS (D. Minn., November 6, 2020).
The case is brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and is
assigned to Judge Nancy E. Brasel.
The Petitioners, who are currently incarcerated at the Federal
Prison Camp Duluth, in Duluth, Minnesota, appear pro se.[BN]
The Respondents are represented by:
Ana H. Voss, Esq.
Ann M. Bildtsen, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
300 S 4th St. Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 664-5600
Facsimile: (612) 664-5788
E-mail: ana.voss@usdoj.gov
ann.bildtsen@usdoj.gov
DW DIRECT INC: Appeals Ruling in Rhyan FLSA Suit to Fifth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DW Direct, Incorporated filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KASIM RHYAN, on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
DW DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03599, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to
represent current and former employees and/or independent
contractors of Defendant who worked as satellite
technicians/installers within the last three years, signed an
Agreement to Arbitrate with Defendant (which Plaintiff asserts is
invalid and unenforceable) and worked over 40 hours per work week
and were not paid overtime compensation in accordance with the FLSA
and/or were not paid all wages earned.
According to the complaint, for approximately the first year of
Plaintiff's tenure working for Defendant, he was classified as an
independent contractor by Defendant. He did not receive overtime
compensation but he was expected to work over 40 hours per week
during that time period. Then Defendant changed Plaintiff's
classification to employee. However, nothing else changed about
Plaintiff's job duties. Moreover, the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and its other satellite technicians/installers overtime
wages when they work/worked more than 40 hours in a workweek as
required by the FLSA. The Defendant also makes improper deductions
from Plaintiffs' wages failing to pay all wages earned in violation
of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as Kasim Rhyan v. DW Direct,
Incorporated, Case No. 20-20606, in the US Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, November 23, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Kasim M. Rhyan, on Behalf of Himself and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Renee Nguyen, Esq.
Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
3518 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 960-8300
E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
Defendant-Appellant DW Direct, Incorporated is represented by:
Casey Sean Erick, Esq.
ERICK LAW GROUP
4144 N. Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 821-1700
E-mail: cerick@cowlesthompson.com
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Non-Binding Settlement Reached in Olenik Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that after engaging in
extensive pre-trial discovery, the parties in Olenik v. Lodzinksi
et al., engaged in a mediation process that resulted in a
non-binding settlement term sheet on September 21, 2020.
On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P., Bold, Bold Holdings
and Oak Valley Resources, LLC.
The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution agreement
dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017, by
and among Earthstone, Earthstone Energy Holdings, LLC (EEH), Lynden
US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold.
The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the business
combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement (the "Bold
Transaction") to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain
adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.
On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice.
The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On
April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes.
After engaging in extensive pre-trial discovery, the parties
engaged in a mediation process that resulted in a non-binding
settlement term sheet on September 21, 2020.
The term sheet is being translated into a Stipulation and Agreement
of Compromise, Settlement and Release Agreement between the parties
and will then be filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery for
approval.
The principal terms of the anticipated Settlement Agreement are as
follows: (i) a $3.5 million all-in cash settlement payment (the
"Fund") to be funded by defendants and/or their insurers into an
escrow account, (ii) a bi-lateral complete and full release of all
claims against defendants and plaintiffs, and (iii) that 55% of the
Fund (the derivative payment) be paid to Earthstone to be used as
determined by management, according to their fiduciary duties and
business judgment, 45% of the Fund (the class payment) be paid to
members of the class or current stockholders of Earthstone.
The Company expects court approval of the Settlement Agreement and
in addition estimates the insurance carriers and related affiliates
to reimburse the Company in the amount of $2.8 million and $0.1
million, respectively. As described above, the Company expects to
receive a portion of the derivative payment, however, the amount
cannot be reasonably determined at this time.
Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.
EAST VILLAGE STAFFING: Chiu Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Chiu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. East Village Staffing, Inc., Xing Mei Chen,
Yongjuan Zhu, Zhao Min Song and Yolanda Luo, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04767, (E.D. N.Y., October 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and New York labor laws.
Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant "Lou Joe Restaurant"
located in Roslyn Heights, New York where Chiu was employed as a
cashier. She claims to be denied lawful overtime compensation of
one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over forty in a given workweek, and full and accurate records of
hours and wages. She also claims to have worked through her lunch
breaks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
Fax: (718) 762-1342
Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com
ECKERT SEAMANS: Melchior Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MELCHIOR; LINDA LETIER; TERESA KIRK-JUNOD; ROBERT HAWRYLAK;
JOSEPH F. BROCK; JR.; RAYMOND G. HEFFNER; JOHN MADDEN; THOMAS D.
GREEN; MAUREEN A. GREEN; DOMINICK BELLIZZIE; JANET KAMINSKI;
CYNTHIA BUTLER; WILLIAM BUTLER; EDWARD WOODS; GLEN W. COLE, JR.;
JOHN BUTLER; ROBERT BETZ; MICHAEL D. GROFF; SHAWN P. CARLIN; MARCY
H. KERSHNER; JOHN W. HARVEY; LAURIE H. SUTHERLAND; WILLIAM M.
SUTHERLAND; BRUCE CHASAN; RANDAL BOYER, JR. AS POA FOR CHANTAL
BOYER; ROY MILLS; JACE A. WEAVER; GEORGE S. ROADKNIGHT; ROBERT
DELROCCO; LEONARD GOLDSTEIN; DAVID JAKEMAN; FRED BARAKAT; MARK
NEWKIRK; MICHAEL SWAN; BARBARA BARR; MICHAEL BARR; JOSEPH CAMAIONI;
JORDAN LEPOW; MARILYN SWARTZ; ROBERT L. YORI; JOAN L. YORI; MARK A.
TARONE; RAYMOND D. FERGIONE; RAYMOND BRUCE BOEHM; ROBIN LYNN BOEHM;
PATRICIA CROSSINCHAWAGA; CHARLES P. MOORE; JAMES E. HILTON; DOUGLAS
C. KUNKEL; BONNIE LEE BEEMAN; ERNEST S. LAVORINI; ELIZABETH ANN
DOYLE; JOSEPH GREENBERG; and DONALD DEMPSEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEAN
VAGNOZZI; CHRISTA VAGNOZZI; ALBERT VAGNOZZI; ALEC VAGNOZZI; SHANNON
WESTHEAD; JASON ZWIEBEL, ANDREW ZUCH, MICHAEL TIERNEY; PAUL TERENCE
KOHLER; JOHN MYURA; JOHN W. PAUCIULO; ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC; SPARTAN INCOME FUND, LLC; PISCES INCOME FUND LLC;
CAPRICORN INCOME FUND I, LLC; MERCHANT SERVICES INCOME FUND, LLC;
COVENTRY FIRST LLC; PILLAR LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND I, L.P.; PILLAR II
LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P.; PILLAR 3 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P.;
PILLAR 4 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P.; PILLAR 5 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND,
L.P.; PILLAR 6 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P.; PILLAR 7 LIFE SETTLEMENT
FUND, L.P.; PILLAR 8 LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND, L.P.; ATRIUM LEGAL
CAPITAL, LLC; ATRIUM LEGAL CAPITAL 2, LLC; ATRIUM LEGAL CAPITAL 3,
LLC; ATRIUM LEGAL CAPITAL 4, LLC; FALLCATCHER, INC.; PROMED
INVESTMENT CO., L.P.; and WOODLAND FALLS INVESTMENT FUND, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05562-BMS (E.D. Pa., November 6, 2020)
is an action pursuant to the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corruption Organizations Act and state law claims for negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, conspiracy, fraud
and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants, in order to carry out
their fraudulent scheme, created and disseminated false and
misleading radio advertisements and engaged in deceptive in-person
solicitations in order to persuade individuals, including retirees
and others on fixed incomes, to purchase merchant cash investments
pursuant to false and misleading Private Placement Memoranda and
Subscription Agreements with a series of Delaware limited liability
companies and limited partnerships that were formed, promoted and
syndicated by the Defendants.
Allegedly, Defendant Vagnozzi falsely represented to the investing
public that the ABetterFinancialPlan.com LLC's Merchant Cash
Advance Investments were safer than anything available on Wall
Street, claiming, "I make ZERO guarantees. Never have. But the
investments we have offer higher returns with less risk than
anything you can find on wall-street and without using annuities.
It is that simple…. We have a few investments that traditionally
require a lot of capital to get involved with… which is why you
won't find them at Vanguard… or any other traditional cookie
cutter advisor."
The Plaintiffs seek to recover millions of dollars' worth of
investments after they were fraudulently induced by the Defendants
to use their hard-earned savings to purchase unsecured securities
backed by risky merchant cash advance loans to small businesses,
the suit says.
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC is a national law firm with
approximately 350 attorneys, that maintain offices in 15 cities,
including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Corporate Defendants are American companies engaged in the business
of issuing unregistered merchant cash advance investments, life
settlement funds, and unregistered securities in the form of
promissory notes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 656-2500
Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com
ScottTucker@chimicles.com
- and -
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.,
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
Jason Kellogg, Esq.
Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami Center, 22nd Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 403-8788
Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com
jk@lklsg.com
vjw@lklsg.com
- and -
Scott L. Silver, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 755-4799
E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com
EMERALD HOLDING: To Pay $390,000 Attorneys' Fees in Local 449 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
subsequently agreed to pay $390,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses
to the plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of plaintiff's
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in the putative class action suit
entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A.
No. 2020-0522-JRS
On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company
and its directors under the caption Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS.
The complaint alleged that the disclosures made in Emerald's Form
S-3 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on June 19, 2020 regarding the contemplated rights
offering described therein omitted certain material information.
The action was seeking, among other forms of relief, an injunction
against the rights offering.
The plaintiff also filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On
July 2, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice, voluntarily dismissing
the action as moot and on July 17, 2020, the court entered an order
of dismissal with prejudice dismissing the lawsuit.
Emerald subsequently agreed to pay $390,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses to the plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of the
plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses.
Emerald Holding, Inc. organizes business to business trade shows.
The Company operates live events, as well as offers other marketing
services, including digital media and print publications. Emerald
Expositions Events serves sports, technology, jewelry,
construction, and other sectors in the United States. The company
is based in San Juan Capistrano, California.
EMPANADA LADY: Cardano Sues Over Illegal Termination
----------------------------------------------------
Susana Cardano, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. The Empanada Lady Co., Monique Font Delacroix and
Boris Marinovic, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-24072, (S.D. Fla.,
October 6, 2020) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages, including her wrongful termination in violation of the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Emergency Paid Sick
Leave Act.
Defendants operate as "ArtPie," a pastry shop in Miami-Dade County
where Cardano worked as a baker.
On or about December 16, 2019, Cardano had surgery due to a serious
medical condition. After a period of recovery of approximately 1.5
months, she went back to work. Upon her return, she began feeling
COVID-19 type symptoms and her doctor advised her to quarantine
herself for two weeks. Her employer granted a two-week leave but
one week later, on or about July 28, 2020, she was terminated.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
ENERGY TRANSFER: Regency Merger Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. 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 the class action suit related to the company's
merger with Regency Energy Partners LP.
On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint related to the Regency-ETO merger in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, on behalf of
Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC,
Energy Transfer LP, (ET), Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. (ETO),
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (ETP GP), and the members of
Regency's board of directors.
The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement.
On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC.
The Court of Chancery later granted the plaintiff's unopposed
motion for class certification. Trial was held on December 10-16,
2019, and a post-trial hearing was held on May 6, 2020.
Energy Transfer said, "The Regency Defendants cannot predict the
outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might
be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency
Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency
Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it."
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Smith Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Residential
Services, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Julian Smith, on
behalf of similarly situated members of the general public v.
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. CGC20587812 (Cal. Super., November 5, 2020).
A case management conference is set for April 7, 2021, before Judge
Samuel K. Feng.
Equity Residential Services, LLC is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust that invests in apartments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
FCA US: Faces Greene Suit Over Inadequate Warning in COBRA Notices
------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-13079-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 18, 2020) alleging that the
Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class
adequate notice of their right to continued health care coverage
under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
("COBRA").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant, as the
plan sponsor and plan administrator of the FCA US LLC Health Care
Benefits Plan for Represented Employees ("Plan"), has repeatedly
violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries
in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their
right to continue their health insurance coverage following an
occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute.
The Defendant did not use the Model Notice to notify plan
participants of their right to continuation coverage even though
the Model Notice adequately provides all required information and
would have provided Defendant with a "safe harbor" if used. The
Model Notice further demonstrates how the information can, and is
required to, be written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant providing a near-fool proof way for
persons to sign up for continuing coverage of their existing
benefits.
Rather than use the Model Notice, the Defendant deliberately
authored and disseminated a notice which omitted critical
information required by law and needlessly included language meant
to deter and otherwise "chill" election of COBRA benefits. The
information Defendant omitted from its notice is information that
is included in the Model Notice.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Justice, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE, LLC
1205 N. Franklin St., Suite 326
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 254-1777
Facsimile: (813) 254-3999
- and -
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
FITBIT INC: Appeal in Calif. Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 3, 2020, that the appeal filed by the
plaintiffs in the consolidated putative securities class action, is
pending.
On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended arising out of alleged
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and full fiscal year 2016
that was provided during the third and fourth quarters of 2016.
On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same
defendants.
On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24,
2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and
certain officers relating to the Company's 2016 guidance, on behalf
of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from
August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017.
Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.
On August 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On March
23, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.
On April 28, 2020, the court entered judgment after plaintiffs
indicated that they did not intend to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 27, 2020.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on September 25, 2020, and the
Company's opposition brief is due on November 25, 2020.
Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
FITBIT INC: Appeal in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 3, 2020, that the parties in the Sleep
Tracking Device-related suit agreed to settle the attorneys' fees
issue for $5.6 million and on August 24, 2020, the appeal was
dismissed.
On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.
Plaintiffs sought class certification, restitution, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses including attorneys' fees.
On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December
8, 2017.
The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.
At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary
settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised
settlement papers be filed. On November 29, 2018, the court granted
preliminary settlement approval and the final approval hearing was
scheduled for August 1, 2019. On May 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed
a request for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company opposed
that request.
At the hearing on August 1, 2019, the court asked the parties to
submit a re-notice plan in order to achieve a higher claims rate.
On the fee request, the court offered the plaintiffs alternative
conditions, and on August 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their fee
election, opting for a 90% reduction of challenged fees and
expenses.
The re-notice plan was approved on October 16, 2019, and the
re-notice resulted in approximately 80,000 more claims, for a total
of approximately 141,000 claims. The court granted final approval
of the settlement on February 6, 2020, in an amount that is not
material to the Company.
On March 20, 2020, the court ruled on the plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees and costs and awarded $6.9 million in attorneys'
fees and $0.2 million in costs. On April 20, 2020, the Company
filed a notice of appeal.
On August 14, 2020, the parties agreed to settle the attorneys'
fees issue for $5.6 million and on August 24, 2020, the appeal was
dismissed.
Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
FLOWERS FOODS: Awaits Written Order of Dismissal in Neff Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2020, that parties in Neff et al.
v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and CK
Sales Co., LLC, are awaiting a written order from the Court
dismissing the lawsuit.
On December 2, 2015, a class action suit entitled, Neff et al. v.
Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, and CK Sales
Co., LLC, 5:15-cv-00254 has been filed in U.S. District Court
District of Vermont.
On January 31, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principal
to settle this matter for a payment of $7.6 million, inclusive of
attorneys' fees and costs, service awards, and incentives for class
members who are active distributors to enter into an amendment to
their distributor agreements.
On October 22, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. The parties are awaiting a written order from the Court
dismissing the lawsuit.
This settlement charge was recorded as a selling, distribution and
administrative expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Income during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019 and paid during the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2020.
Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. The company operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery and Warehouse Delivery. The company was
formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.
FLOWERS FOODS: Consolidated Carr-Boulange Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2020, that the court dismissed
the consolidated "Carr Litigation" and "Boulange Litigation".
On December 1, 2015, a class action suit entitled, Carr et al. v.
Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc.,
2:15-cv-06391, has been filed in U.S. District Court Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
On March 25, 2016 a class action suit entitled, Boulange v. Flowers
Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., 2:16-cv-02581,
has been filed in U.S. District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, which was later consolidated in the Carr litigation.
On September 29, 2020, the Court dismissed the lawsuit and
approved an agreement to settle this matter and the Boulange matter
for a payment of $13.25 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees and
costs, service awards, and incentives for class members who are
active distributors to enter into an amendment to their distributor
agreements.
This settlement charge was recorded as a selling, distribution and
administrative expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Income during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019 and was paid during
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020.
Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. The company operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery and Warehouse Delivery. The company was
formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.
FMC CORPORATION: Seeks Court OK to Appeal Order in Livent IPO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the defendants in
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Livent
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 190501229, filed a motion
seeking permission to appeal the state court's order overruling the
preliminary objections filed by the Defendants.
On May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the company's former
subsidiary Livent Corporation filed a putative class action
complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, in connection with Livent's October 2018 initial public
offering.
The complaint in this case, Plymouth County Retirement Association
v. Livent Corp., et al., named as defendants Livent, certain of its
current and former executives and directors, FMC Corporation, and
underwriters involved in the Livent IPO.
The complaint alleges generally that the offering documents for the
Livent IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information
related to Livent's business and prospects.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and
other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Livent IPO offering documents. On July 2, 2019, Defendants
moved to stay the Plymouth County action, in favor of two similar
putative class actions relating to the Livent IPO, in which FMC had
not been named as a Defendant, which are pending in the United
States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On July 18, 2019, a separate state action was filed against the
same Defendants in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Bizzaria v. Livent Corp., et al. On July 26,
2019, Plymouth County filed an amended complaint in its state court
case.
On September 23, 2019, the actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
190501229. On October 11, 2019, Defendants filed preliminary
objections seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety.
On October 22, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay
the case, but granted a separate motion of the Defendants to stay
all discovery.
On June 29, 2020, the court overruled the preliminary objections
filed by the Defendants and on July 29, 2020, Defendants filed a
motion seeking permission to appeal the state court's order.
FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The
company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
FRANCHISE GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the January 17, 2020
decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, dismissing of the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
entitled, In Re Liberty Tax, Inc. Securities Litigation, with
prejudice.
This case consolidated two previously filed cases on July 12, 2018.
The case, among other things, asserts that the Company's Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings over a multi-year period
failed to disclose the alleged misconduct of the individual
defendants and that disclosure of the alleged misconduct caused the
Company's stock price to drop and, thereby harm the purported class
of stockholders.
The class period is alleged to be October 1, 2013 through February
23, 2018.
The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on September 17, 2018 which was
granted on January 17, 2020.
The Plaintiff filed their notice to appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on February 19, 2020.
The Second Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule for the
appeal. Appellant's brief was filed on May 5, 2020 and Appellant's
opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2020.
On September 30, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the January 17, 2020 decision by the District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, dismissing the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice.
Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
FRANCHISE GROUP: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the parties in the
class action and derivative suit initiated by Asbestos Workers'
Philadelphia Pension Fund, agreed to settle the matter in principle
and the matter has been stayed pending the parties' filing of
settlement papers.
On August 12, 2019, Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
derivatively on behalf of the Company filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, against Matthew Avril, Patrick A. Cozza, Thomas
Herskovits, Brian R. Kahn, Andrew M. Laurence, Lawrence Miller, G.
William Minner Jr., Bryant R. Riley, Kenneth M. Young, and against
Vintage, B. Riley, and the Company as a Nominal Defendant.
The Derivative Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty against
the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants based on the
following allegations: (a) causing the Company to completely
transform its business model and to acquire Buddy's at an inflated
price, (b) transfer the control of the Company to Vintage and B.
Riley for no premium and without a stockholder vote, (c) allowing
Vintage and B. Riley's other former stockholders to unfairly
extract additional value from the Company by virtue of a Tax
Receivable Agreement (TRA), (d) the offering to the Company's
non-Vintage and non-B. Riley stockholders of an inadequate price
for their shares of Company stock ($12.00 per share), (e)
disseminating materially misleading and/or omissive Tender Offer
documents, and (f) issuing additional Company shares to Vintage at
less than fair value to fund the Tender Offer and Vitamin Shoppe
Acquisition.
The Derivative Complaint also includes a count of unjust enrichment
against Vintage and B. Riley.
The Derivative Complaint seeks: (a) declaration that the action is
properly maintainable as a class action; (b) a finding the
Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary
duties owed to the class and the Company; (c) a finding that demand
on the Company's Board is excused as futile; (d) enjoining the
consummation of the Tender Offer unless and until all material
information necessary for the Company's stockholders to make a
fully informed tender decision has been disclosed; (e) a finding
Vintage and B. Riley are liable for unjust enrichment; (f) an award
to Plaintiff and the other members of the class damages in an
amount which may be proven at trial; (g) an award to Plaintiff and
the other members of the class pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs; (h) an award to the Company in the amount of
damages it sustained as a result of Individual Defendants' breaches
of fiduciary duties to the Company; and (i) awarding such other and
further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Simultaneously with the filing of the Derivative Complaint, the
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking expedited proceedings. The motion
was withdrawn as the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants
agreed to produce certain documents.
On October 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended
Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint, following the
Company's filing of the amended and restated offer to purchase on
October 16, 2019. The Amended Complaint contained substantially
similar allegations but revised certain allegations based on
disclosures contained in, or purportedly omitted, from the Offer to
Purchase.
The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October
25, 2019, seeking to prevent the consummation of the pending Offer
to Purchase unless additional information was disclosed. On
November 5, 2019, the Company filed Amendment No. 5 to the Offer to
Purchase making certain additional disclosures, and Plaintiff
withdrew its Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On February 7, 2020, Matthew Sciabacucchi, a purported stockholder
of the Company, filed a motion to intervene to pursue some or all
of the derivative claims pending in the Court of Chancery. Mr.
Sciabacucchi's motion states that Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia
Pension Fund has sold its shares in the Company. The motion to
intervene was granted March 10, 2020.
On June 8, 2020 the Court entered an order governing briefing on
Plaintiff's petition for an interim award of attorney's fees.
Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on June 8, 2020. Defendant's
opposition was filed on July 23, 2020, and Plaintiff's reply was
due on or before August 6, 2020.
The Court held oral arguments on August 18, 2020 and reserved
decision on Plaintiff's motion for interim fees.
On September 29, 2020, the parties agreed to settle this matter in
principle and the matter has been stayed pending the parties'
filing of settlement papers.
Franchise Group said, "The settlement will contain broad and
customary releases. Despite the parties' desire to settle the
matter, there is no assurance that the settlement will be approved
by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company does not expect the
settlement to be material to the Company."
Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
FRANCHISE GROUP: Dec. 18 Class Certification Hearing in Labrado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the Court in Rene
Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc., set a hearing on the class certification
for December 18, 2020.
On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for
herself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated' persons.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code,
including: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
keep pay records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of
California Business and Profession Code Section 17200.
The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages, injunctive relief and other damages.
The Company highly disputes the allegations set forth in the
Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss.
On May 29, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
but granted the Company leave to file a motion to strike. The
Company filed a motion to strike and on August 20, 2019, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion. The Court
provided the Company with twenty days to file its answer to the
Complaint and lifted the discovery stay.
A status conference was held on March 3, 2020 where the Court set a
hearing on the class certification for December 18, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
FRONTIER COMMS: Consolidated Class Suit in Connecticut Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the consolidated class
action suit filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, pending appeal.
On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.
The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.
The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the
CTF Acquisition.
The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.
On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court's permission to refile.
On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along
with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than
the dismissed complaint.
On March 24, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend, finding that they had not pled a viable claim.
Plaintiffs appealed and the case was stayed by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Frontier said, "We continue to dispute the allegations and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims."
Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and
copper-based networks to consumer customers. The company was
formerly known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its
name to Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier
Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.
FTS USA: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review in Monroe FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants FTS USA, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE,
and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. FTS USA, LLC; UNITEK USA, LLC, Case No.
2:08-cv-02100, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee at Memphis.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants implemented a
company-wide time-shaving policy that required its employees to
systematically underreport their overtime hours, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Edward Monroe, et al. v. FTS
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-6289, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE, and TIMOTHY
WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, are represented by:
Donald Alfred Donati, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
E-mail: don@donatilaw.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER
80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: srey@nka.com
Defendants-Appellants FTS USA, LLC and UNITEK USA, LLC are
represented by:
Saul C. Belz, Esq.
GLANKLER BROWN
6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
Memphis, TN 38119
Telephone: (901) 685-1322
E-mail: sbelz@Glankler.com
- and -
Colin D. Dougherty, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD
P.O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Telephone: (610) 397-6500
E-mail: cdougherty@foxrothschild.com
GANNETT CO: Supreme Court Appeal Filed in Quatrone ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gannett Co., Inc., et al., filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled GANNETT CO., INC., THE GANNETT BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Petitioners, v. JEFFREY QUATRONE, on behalf of
GANNETT CO., INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and all others similarly
situated, Respondent, Case No. 20-609.
Response is due on December 7, 2020.
Petitioners Gannett Co. and the The Gannett Benefit Plans Committee
petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case
titled CHRISTINA STEGEMANN, Appellant, and JEFFREY QUATRONE, on
Behalf of Gannett Co., Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GANNETT COMPANY, INC.;
THE GANNETT BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-1212. The Fourth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The panel majority held
that the diversification requirement of the duty of prudence
requires not only diversification of investment options in the
plan, but also of each individual option.
The question presented is: Whether a Plaintiff adequately pleads
breach of the duties of prudence and diversification solely by
alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined
contribution plan to choose, from an adequately diversified menu of
investment options, to invest in an undiversified single-stock
fund.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not contend that any
investment option in the retirement plan was imprudent due to its
price, but instead claimed that by allowing plan participants to
invest in a single-stock fund--that is, by including a single-stock
fund on a diversified menu of investment options -- the Defendants
breached the diversification requirement of the duty of prudence,
as well as standalone diversification requirement of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In allowing the
Plaintiff's claim to proceed, the Fourth Circuit created a circuit
split regarding the scope of ERISA's diversification requirement
and, in permitting the Plaintiff's claim for breach of the duty of
prudence to proceed absent allegations of "special circumstances,"
ruled in conflict with the court's decision in the case Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, where the court acknowledged "the threat
of costly duty-of-prudence lawsuits" facing ERISA plan fiduciaries
following a drop in the stock price of an employer or other company
in which plan assets were invested.
Defendant Gannett Co., Inc. offers its employees a defined
contribution 401(k) savings plan, which permits employees to
allocate their investments among a menu of investment options.
After Gannett's spinoff from TEGNA, Inc., one of these options was
a fund of TEGNA stock in which participants were previously
invested. While participants were free to divest from this fund at
any point and were not permitted to invest more money in it after
the spinoff, the Committee did not begin winding down the fund
until two years after the spinoff. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants breached their duties of prudence and diversification by
not closing the fund earlier because a non-employer single-stock
fund is not appropriately diversified to limit investment
risk.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners Gannett Co., Inc., et al., are represented
by:
Tacy Fletcher Flint, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
E-mail: tflint@sidley.com
GARDENER REICHMANN: Faces Lowe FDCA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gardener, Reichmann &
Chow. The case is captioned as Derarus Lowe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gardener, Reichmann &
Chow, Case No. 8:20-cv-02168-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal., November 10,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney.
Gardener, Reichmann & Chow is an Orange, California-based full
service collection law firm, handling all collection problems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
4605 Lankershim Boulevard Suite 535
Toluca Lake, CA 91602
Telephone: (323) 940-1700
Facsimile: (323) 328-8095
E-mail: nick@mblawapc.com
tom@mblawapc.com
GARRETT MOTION: Gabelli Asset Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli Dividend & Income Trust, The
Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., SM
Investors LP and SM Investors II LP, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Su Ping Lu, Olivier
Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, Craig Balis,
Thierry Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M. Cardoso, Maura J. Clark,
Courtney M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main, Carsten Reinhardt and Scott
A. Tozier, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07992 (S.D. N.Y., October 5,
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants are current and former officers and directors of Garrett
Motion Inc., a company that designs, manufactures and sells
turbocharger, electric-boosting and connected vehicle technologies
for original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In
October 2018, the Company formed as a spin-off of the
Transportation Systems business of Honeywell International Inc.
On August 26, 2020, before the market opened, Garret disclosed that
its leveraged capital structure has affected its ability to gain or
hold market share in the automotive supply market and was made
worse by significant claims asserted by Honeywell against certain
Garrett subsidiaries under the disputed subordinated asbestos
indemnity and the tax matters agreement.
On this news, Garrett's share price fell $3.04, or 44%, to close at
$3.84 per share on August 26, 2020, thereby damaging investors. On
Sunday, September 20, 2020, Garrett announced that it had filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The following Monday, September 21, 2020,
the New York Stock Exchange announced that it would commence
proceedings to delist Garrett's stock from the NYSE after its
disclosure that it had filed for bankruptcy.
On this news, the Garrett's stock began trading over-the-counter
and closed at $1.76 per share on September 22, 2020, a 12% decline
from the closing price on September 18, 2020.
The Gabelli Asset Fund, Gabelli Dividend & Income Trust Fund,
Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc. and Gabelli Equity Trust Inc. are mutual
funds managed by Gabelli Funds, LLC. SM Investors LP is an
investment fund managed by S. Muoio & Co. LLC. Gabelli and SM
Investors suffered substantial losses as a result of their
investments in Garrett common stock. [BN]
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
Email: 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
Email: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
GC SERVICES: Chernofsky Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY CHERNOFSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05529 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff on or about April 22, 2020 concerning the
Plaintiff's alleged debt incurred to American Express. However, the
letter is deemed false and deceptive because it simultaneously
states a fixed amount payment plan on the debt and also states that
the balance could be increasing. The Defendant allegedly used a
deceptive collection tactic intended to intimidate and coerce the
Plaintiff into paying immediately.
GC Services Limited Partnership is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burkhart Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, 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 class action suit entitled, Richard F.
Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt,
Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth et al.
In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth
North America Corporation, GFIH and Genworth Life Insurance Company
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and
engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain
inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC
policyholders and agents.
The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent
transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive
relief. The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018.
On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend
their complaint. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a memorandum in opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss, which the company replied to on June 14, 2019.
On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent
proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale
of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. from being transferred out
of GFIH.
On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking
the same relief from their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception
that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds
from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth
Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan
facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the
borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties
thereto.
Oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and the plaintiffs' motion was
denied.
On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part the company's motion
to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends
GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million
in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims).
The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a
claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims
relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction.
On March 27, 2020, the company filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.
Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
action."
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Final Approval of Skochin Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, 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 final approval
of settlement in Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry Huber,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company, is
still pending.
In January 2019, Genworth Financial and Genworth Life Insurance
Company (GLIC) were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and
Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance
policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and
inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term
care insurance policies.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud,
fraudulent inducement and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named
plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents), and seeks damages
(including statutory treble damages under Pennsylvania law) in
excess of $5 million.
On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company
replied to on April 1, 2019. In July 2019, the Court heard oral
arguments on the company's motion to dismiss. On August 29, 2019,
the Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss
the claim with regard to breach of contract, but denied the
company's motion with regard to fraudulent omission, fraudulent
inducement and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection law.
On Sept. 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping
Genworth Financial as a defendant and reducing their causes of
action from four counts to two: fraudulent inducement by omission
and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are
Pennsylvania residents).
The parties engaged in a mediation process and, on October 22,
2019, reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a
nationwide basis. On November 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, adding Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York as a
defendant and expanding the class to all fifty states and the
District of Columbia.
On January 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and set the final approval hearing for July 10, 2020. On
March 26, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Leave to Amend
certain aspects of the settlement, which was approved by the Court
on March 31, 2020.
On April 10, 2020, the Indiana Department of Insurance filed a
Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay, seeking to stay the current
schedule for class settlement and delay the date of the final
approval hearing in light of disruptions caused by COVID-19.
On April 14, 2020, the class administrator sent out class notices
to potential settlement class members. On April 17, 2020,
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Indiana Department of
Insurance's motion to stay. The Court conducted final approval
hearings on July 10, 2020, July 14, 2020 and September 11, 2020.
Genwort said, "Based on the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement, the company do not anticipate the outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse impact on our results of
operations or financial position. If the court does not approve the
final settlement, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this
action."
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Inc. Suit in Virginia Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, 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 Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company ("GLAIC") continues to defend itself in a
putative class action suit entitled, TVPX ARX INC., as Securities
Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company.
In September 2018, GLAIC, the company's indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities
Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company.
Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges
were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for
breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered
non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and
failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved
expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief.
On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case
in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and
motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia.
The company moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District
of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in
a prior nationwide class action settlement (the "McBride
settlement") that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018.
On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of
Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that the
plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior
settlement agreement by filing its current action.
On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the
company's motion to enjoin and denied its motion for leave to file
its counterclaim. As such, the plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing
its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia.
On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from
the order granting our motion to enjoin.
On March 29, 2019, the company filed its notice of cross-appeal in
the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its
cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order
denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim.
On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the
case without prejudice, with leave for the plaintiff to refile an
amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates
the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's
opinion.
On May 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in
support in the Eleventh Circuit. The company filed its response to
the plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the
plaintiff's appeal and the company's cross-appeal on April 21,
2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the Middle District of Georgia's order enjoining
Plaintiff's class action and remanded the case back to the Middle
District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether
Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance
since the McBride settlement.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on
Genworth's counterclaim.
Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the
dismissal of this action."
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.
GEO GROUP: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages for Prison Officers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01184 (D.N.M., November 13, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a correctional officer at
the Lea County Correctional Facility in New Mexico during the class
period.
The Plaintiff claims that although he and other similarly situated
correctional officers and detention officers regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a week, they were not fully compensated because
the Defendant failed to include in their total hours worked the
time they spent performing pre-shift duties, specifically doing
10-20 minutes security screening as required by the Defendant,
which is integral and indispensable to their principal activity. As
a result, the Defendant failed to properly pay them for all the
hours worked over 40 at the applicable overtime rate at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay.
The Geo Group, Inc. provides private prison services across the
U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Forty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Tel: (713) 523-0001
Fax: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and –
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: Facing Jacksonville Trust Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing a class action suit initiated by Jacksonville Police
Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust.
In September 2020, the company along with generic manufacturers
Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA Inc. were named as defendants in a class
action lawsuit filed by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire
Fighters Health Insurance Trust on behalf of end-payor purchasers.
Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement
between the company and Cipla, which settled a patent dispute
relating to patents covering the company's Emtriva, Truvada, and
Atripla products and permitted generic entry prior to patent
expiry, violates certain federal and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to various drugs
used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination with
antiretroviral therapy.
The company (along with Japan Tobacco Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants
in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020.
Japan Tobacco was dismissed from the lawsuit after a favorable
court ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs allege that the company (and the other remaining
defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection laws.
The lawsuits, which have been or may be consolidated, are all
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of two nationwide
classes - one of direct purchasers consisting largely of
wholesales, and another of end-payor purchasers, including health
insurers and individual patients.
Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other
relief.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to the side effects
of its HIV drugs, namely, Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and
Stribild.
The company had been named as a defendant in two class action
lawsuits and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread,
Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild.
Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or
Stribild caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth
injuries.
The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in
California, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey and Missouri, involve
more than 19,000 plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.
Gilead said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these
actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot
predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their
claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987,
is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug
candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for
people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The
company is based in Foster City, California.
GOLD STAR: Faces Benjamin Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC BENJAMIN JR. v. GOLD STAR GRINDING INC.; ANTHONY C. BROUGH;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV42357 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 4, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees arising
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor
Code and the California's Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff contends the Defendants failed to compensate him and
other similarly situated employees for all hours worked; failed to
pay minimum wages; failed to pay overtime; failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failed to pay wages owed every
pay period; failed to pay wages when employment ends; failed to
give rest and meal periods; failed to maintain accurate records;
and failed to reimburse for business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by Gold Star Grinding as a truck driver
and was also in the shipping/receiving department from on or around
September 2017 until July 14, 2020.
Gold Star Grinding, Inc. is a California-based licensed and bonded
freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal in Commodities-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
plaintiffs in the class action suit related to alleged violations
of antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act by Goldman Sachs
International (GSI) have taken an appeal to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals from the decision granting the defendants' motions
to dismiss and for reconsideration.
GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions
relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on
November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.
On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all
claims.
On April 27, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit related to
variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) is still pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the defendants named in a putative
class action relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs),
filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Corporate Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
related to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, is
pending.
The company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are
among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action
relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed
on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The consolidated complaint, filed on July 14, 2020, asserts claims
under federal antitrust law in connection with alleged
anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary market
for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble and punitive damages and restitution.
Defendants moved to dismiss on September 10, 2020.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Objections Filed in Employment Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties
in the class action suit alleging employee discrimination,
submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge's order granting in
part a motion to compel arbitration.
On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees.
The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the company
(Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of
compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws.
The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.
On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.
On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
the defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied the
defendants' petition for rehearing.
On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.
On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court
granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members
who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co.
in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes.
On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order and defendants submitted conditional
objections in the event that the district judge overturns any
portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GUCCI AMERICA: Persaud Sues Over Analysts' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TARANGINI PERSAUD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUCCI AMERICA, INC. and KERING
AMERICA'S, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09720 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an analyst for the time
period of December 9, 2019 to present.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants intentionally
misclassified her and other similarly situated employees as exempt
of overtime compensation despite performing non-exempt duties.
Although they were required by the Defendants to work more than 40
hours per workweek, the Defendants failed to compensate them at the
statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees with accurate wage statements on each
payday or with an accurate wage notice at the time of hire.
Gucci America, Inc. and Kering America's, Inc. operate as a single
business enterprise with related activities involving the
international sales of luxury goods, including clothing and
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 939-7229
HCL AMERICA: Underpays CSRs, Gardner et al. Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
A. DONALD GARDNER, and DYAMOND WHITE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCL AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-02340 (D. Minn., November 17, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
overtime wages to its customer service representatives (CSRs).
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as CSR at the Defendant's
call center operating switchboards for its end clients.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated CSRs were permitted and required by the Defendant to work
more than 40 hours, but without overtime compensation.
Specifically, they were required to work for 10 hours a day to
complete trainings, and to be at their workstations at least 15
minutes before the start of their scheduled shift to log into and
start up their computers. However, they were only compensated by
the Defendant for the time of their scheduled shift. Additionally,
the Defendant had a pattern and practice of deducting "lunch,"
"break," and "bathroom" time from their CSRs' hours worked even
though they did not take their breaks or were in the "available"
mode longer than the time for which they were scheduled.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant is liable under the FLSA
for willfully failing depriving its CSRs their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable FLSA overtime rate, and for
failing to accurately record all hours they worked.
HCL America, Inc. operates a call center. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dustin W. Massie, Esq.
Jon M. Thome, Esq.
BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 252-3570
Fax: (612) 252-3571
E-mail: dmassie@baillonthome.com
jthome@baillonthome.com
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. 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 class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v
Herbalife Ltd., et al.
On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.
On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend
itself against the claims in the lawsuit.
The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount
of the loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
HOFFMAN HUNTERS: Johnson Sues Over Improper Towing of Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHESTER G. JOHNSON JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. HOFFMAN HUNTERS CREEK INC., and PARADISE
HIGHWAY, LLC, d/b/a/ UNIVERSAL TOWING & RECOVERY, INC., Case No.
117070792 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., November 20, 2020) arises
from the illegal and wrongful towing of the Plaintiff's vehicle by
Universal Towing while it was parked at a private property owned
and maintained by Hoffman Hunters, in violation of the Orange
County Code of Ordinances.
According to the complaint, the property fails to have
statutorily-compliant tow away zone signage displayed at each of
the public right-of-way entrances. Hoffman's authorization of
removal of vehicles without the owner's consent and without
strictly compliant tow away zone signage being displayed violates
the state laws.
The suit further asserts that Universal Towing, as part of its
business model, allegedly removes and/or attempts to remove
vehicles from private property without the vehicle owner's consent
in order to derive profit therefrom.
Hoffman Hunters Creek Inc. operates and manages the shopping plaza
commonly known as The Shoppes At Hunters Creek located in Orlando,
Orange County, Florida.
Paradise Highway, LLC, d/b/a/ Universal Towing & Recovery, Inc., is
a towing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
Courtney A. Umberger, Esq.
Christopher W. Mathena, Esq.
FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
105 S. Edison Avenue
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 463-0123
Facsimile: (813) 670-1288
E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com
CU@FulgencioLaw.com
CMathena@FulgencioLaw.com
HOME DEPOT 401K: Court Greenlights Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on Sept.
21, ruled that an ERISA lawsuit brought by participants in the Home
Depot FutureBuilder 401(k) Plan against plan fiduciaries could
proceed as a class action lawsuit. Pizarro v. The Home Depot is
particularly notable for the number of participant who may be
affected - now estimated to top 300,000.
Court Greenlights Class Action Status for Home Depot 401k ERISA
LawsuitMuch has happened since 2018, when this ERISA lawsuit was
the subject of much coverage, so the time may be ripe for a bit of
recap and another look at some of the pros and cons of gigantic
class action lawsuits, like Pizarro.
The History Of Pizarro, So Far
The Complaint originally named 5 defendants:
The Home Depot;
the plan's investment committee;
the plan's administrative committee; and
two financial advisors – Financial Engines Advisors, LLC
and Alight Financial Advisors, LLC.
The particular breaches of law alleged were all rooted in the
fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA:
-- breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence through the
mismanagement of investment options;
-- breach of the same duties by the selection of two financial
advisors who appear to have been engaged in a kick-back scheme;
-- engaging in transactions that were improperly influenced due to
an interested individual's role or financial interest in the
transaction (prohibited transactions); and
-- failure to monitor those to whom fiduciary responsibilities
were delegated.
In 2019, the court dismissed the counts against the financial
advisors on the ground that they were not covered by the fiduciary
responsibility provisions of ERISA.
The latest decision permits the ERISA lawsuit to go forward against
the remaining 3 defendants on the basis that and the participants
has enough in common to move ahead as a group.
Class Action Certification Of Pizarro Plaintiffs
In general, under Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a federal court will grant a group of plaintiffs the
right to bring a class action lawsuit only if:
-- the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;
-- there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
-- the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
-- the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.
There is no set maximum or minimum number of plaintiffs required.
In Pizarro, the only issue with class action status appears to have
been whether there was sufficient commonality in the facts or
claims of various subclasses of plaintiffs.
One subgroup of participants alleged that the poor investment
options offered indicated a breach of fiduciary duty. The other two
subgroups of participants complained of the excessive fees charged
by Financial Engines Advisors LLC and Alight Financial Advisors
LLC. Nonetheless, the District Court found that the plaintiffs'
claims were straightforward excessive fee claims, of the sort
routinely certified.
Does Size Matter?
This returns the court watcher to the issue most notable about this
ERISA lawsuit, which is the huge number of individuals in the
class. Does the fact that more than 300,000 participants may be
affected matter?
No, according to the letter of the law. But in reality, the answer
is yes, of course, because the size of either a potential judgment
or the settlement required to avoid one could be record-shattering.
This leads to thorny policy questions about the use of class action
lawsuits.
Many Sides to The Same Question
From the judicial perspective, class action lawsuits have some
advantages of efficiency. They permit speedier and more economical
discovery and pretrial proceedings than many individual lawsuits
would. Treating a group of plaintiffs as a class also prevents
inconsistent decisions that could be a basis for further appeals.
From the plaintiffs' point of view, class action lawsuits can seem
like the only effective remedy when the dollar amount in dispute is
small – less than the cost of individual litigation. The threat
of a large jury award or expensive settlement may also seem like
the most powerful tool in an area of the law where the regulatory
structure lax or the enforcement of existing law or regulations is
undependable.
On the other hand, individual plaintiffs cannot appeal from a class
action decision or settlement that that they think is inadequate.
Some have been unhappy with the amount of the recovery they
ultimately receive.
Employer advocates generally (though not universally) oppose what
they see as the growth of class action lawsuits. The language can
get heated with accusations of "blackmail settlements."
Nonetheless, class action lawsuits are a tool in the plaintiffs'
tool box, and it appears that that tool will be available to plan
participants in the massive Home Depot ERISA lawsuit about to
unfold. [GN]
HOUSTON ASTROS: Writ of Mandamus Filed in Ticketholders' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Relators Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros Management, Inc.
filed a petition for writ of mandamus from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled IN RE HOUSTON ASTROS, LLC AND HOUSTON
ASTROS MANAGEMENT, INC., Case Nos. 2020-10637, 2020-11192,
2020-11221, in the Texas District Court, Harris County, 152nd
Judicial District.
The issues presented are:
1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the
Astros' amended motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 91a?
2. Appellate courts throughout the country have uniformly
dismissed claims for fan disappointment in how a game is played, no
matter what legal theory the plaintiff asserts. Did the trial court
abuse its discretion by refusing to dismiss Ticketholders' claims
that are based on the sign-stealing controversy?
3. Ticketholders hope to hold high-profile and expensive
class-action discovery and trial on claims that appellate courts
have overwhelmingly rejected as non-justiciable. Do the Astros have
an adequate right by appeal if mandamus relief is not granted?
4. Are Ticketholders' quasi-contractual claims barred by the
existence of written contracts?
5. Did Ticketholders' fraud and DTPA claims have any basis in
law or fact?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Adam Wallach,
who is an Astros season-ticket holder, filed the lawsuit on behalf
of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 full or partial season ticket holders for
"deceptively overcharging them for season tickets while defendants
and their employees and representatives knowingly and
surreptitiously engaged in a sign-stealing scheme in violation of
Major League Baseball Rules and Regulations, and secretly put a
deficient product on the field that could result (and now has
resulted) in severe penalties instituted by MLB," according to
court documents.
This mandamus action seeks to overturn the denial of a motion to
dismiss filed under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. The order
was signed on September 2, 2020 by the Honorable Robert Schaffer,
Judge of the 152nd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
The primary issue raised by the Astros was the inability of the
Real Parties in Interest -- the Ticketholders -- as holders of
season tickets to Astros baseball games, to file a lawsuit over how
the Astros played baseball games. Ticketholders' putative class
action asserts causes of action for fraud by nondisclosure,
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act (DTPA), money had and received, and unjust
enrichment/assumpsit.
With one exception not at issue, Ticketholders' claims are all
based on the allegation that the Houston Astros engaged in an
improper "sign-stealing" scheme in violation of Major League
Baseball Rules. Ticketholders' claims further fail as a matter of
law under traditional and well-settled principles of Texas
law.[BN]
Relators Houston Astros, LLC and Houston Astros Management, Inc.
are represented by:
Reagan W. Simpson, Esq.
Bryce L. Callahan, Esq.
April Farris, Esq.
Grant B. Martinez, Esq.
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-8000
Facsimile: (713) 632-8002
E-mail: rsimpson@yettercoleman.com
bcallahan@yettercoleman.com
afarris@yettercoleman.com
gmartinez@yettercoleman.com
Real parties in interest Adam Wallach, Roger Contreras, Kenneth
Young, and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
Edison Plaza
350 Pine Street, Suite 700
Beaumont, TX 77701
Telephone: (409) 833-7700
Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD.
2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400
Beaumont, TX 77702
Telephone: (409) 838-0101
Facsimile: (409) 838-6780
E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com
- and -
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Marion Reilly, Esq.
John C. Duff, Esq.
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Rudy Gonzales, Jr., Esq.
Catherine D. Tobin, Esq.
John B. Martinez, Esq.
Bradford P. Klager, Esq.
Jessica J. Pritchett, Esq.
Alex Hilliard, Esq.
HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
marion@hmglawfirm.com
jduff@hmglawfirm.com
HP INC: Parziale Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Parziale filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled John Parziale v. HP, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-05363-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 17,
2020, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.
The putative nation-wide class action suit arises out of Defendant
HP's implementation of a remote firmware update that allegedly
incapacitated Plaintiff Parziale's HP printers and 33 other models
of HP printers by preventing the use of certain non-HP ink
cartridges in those printers.
On Sept. 12, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased an HP Officejet Pro 7740
printer from an Office Depot in Jacksonville, Florida. On June 6,
2018, he purchased another HP Officejet Pro 7740 printer from
Amazon.com. When shopping for a printer, it was important to him
that the printer be compatible with third-party ink cartridges and
refilled HP ink cartridges because these non-HP cartridges were
less expensive than their HP brand counterparts. Indeed, the
Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that he would not have purchased the
printers had he known that he would be unable to use non-HP
cartridges with the printer. The Plaintiff did not see any
representations by HP that he would only be able to use HP brand
cartridges, so he bought the HP printers. The packaging on the
printers he bought included the statement: "Please use genuine HP
ink cartridges for best results."
Though the Plaintiff did not know it at the time of purchase,
certain HP printers are configured to perform automatic updates to
the software embedded in the device without user intervention. It
means that HP can remotely update the firmware in its printers
without users' knowledge. HP's online support page for the
Officejet Pro 7740 contains a brief description of that remote
update ability, which HP calls "dynamic security."
On April 12, 2019, HP used dynamic security technology to implement
a firmware update that modified the firmware on many models of HP
printers, including the Plaintiff's printers, without alerting
users. The update caused affected printers to cease functioning
with certain third-party and refilled cartridges. HP printers and
compatible ink cartridges contain chips that allow the printer and
the cartridge to communicate with each other. The printer chip
contains a master key code and the cartridge chip contains a base
key code that allows the printer to authenticate that the cartridge
is compatible. The April firmware update changed the communication
protocol between printer chips and cartridge chips so that certain
varieties of non-HP cartridge chips were no longer able to
communicate with the HP printers. Because the firmware update
blocked these non-HP cartridge chips, any cartridge with such a
chip no longer functioned with an HP printer.
As a result of the update, the Plaintiff's printer ceased working
with the refilled cartridges that were installed in his printers at
the time. When he attempted to print, he received a series of error
messages stating that he needed to replace empty cartridges and
that there was a "cartridge problem." He replaced the refilled
cartridges with other third-party cartridges and received another
error message directing him to remove and reinstall the cartridge
to make sure it was correctly installed. The Plaintiff was not able
to use his printers unless and until he bought HP brand cartridges.
At the time of the firmware update, the Plaintiff had purchased and
was in possession of at least nine refilled cartridges, which no
longer functioned with his printer following the update. As of the
date the FAC was filed, his printers still did not work unless they
were loaded with original HP cartridges. The Plaintiff alleges that
this limited functionality devalued his printers.
The Plaintiff alleges that HP has engaged in this type of conduct
before. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks to represent all
United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, purchased or owned one or more Class
Printers as well as all persons in Florida who purchased or owned
one or more Class Printers ("Florida Subclass").
The appellate case is captioned as John Parziale v. HP, Inc., Case
No. 20-17009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:
-- Appellant John Parziale Mediation Questionnaire was due on
October 21, 2020;
-- Appellant John Parziale opening brief is due on January 13,
2021;
-- Appellee HP, Inc. answering brief is due on February 12,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant, JOHN PARZIALE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Adrian Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
Defendant-Appellee HP, INC. is represented by:
Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
Ilissa Samplin, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com
isamplin@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Joseph Richard Rose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 393-8277
E-mail: jrose@gibsondunn.com
HUY FONG: Faces Valdez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
ANNA VALDEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. HUY FONG FOODS, INC., a California corporation and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43037 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., November 9, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends the Defendants have had a consistent policy
and/or practice of failing to: (1) comply with California law
concerning payment of lawful wages for all hours worked, including
overtime hours worked; (2) pay minimum wage; (3) provide timely,
uninterrupted meal breaks; (4) provide safe working conditions; (5)
provide compliant rest breaks and cool-down rest periods; (6)
timely pay all wages owed; and (7) provide accurate itemized wage
statements and maintain accurate records.
Plaintiff Valdez is a resident of the State of California and was
employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendants until
May 11, 2020.
Huy Fong Foods is an American hot sauce company based in Irwindale,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com
HY-VEE INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review in Greenstate Credit Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Hy-Vee, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated November 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Greenstate Credit Union, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hy-Vee, Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-00621-DSD, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The dispute arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence and
violation of the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act regarding its
handling of a data breach that exposed sensitive payment card data.
The Plaintiff contends that, from November 2018 to August 2019,
computer hackers installed malicious software on the Defendant's
point-of-sale systems at its fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee shops,
and restaurants. This malware allowed the hackers to access Hy-Vee
customers' payment card data, including the cardholder's name,
credit or debit card number, and expiration date.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to implement
adequate data security measures to ward off such data breaches and
failed to timely discover and contain the data breach.
Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant "refused to
implement certain best practices, failed to upgrade critical
security systems, used outdated point-of-sale systems, ignored
warnings about the vulnerability of its computer network, and
disregarded and/or violated applicable industry standards."
On November 10, 2020, the District Court denied Hy-Vee, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss for improper venue or lack of personal
jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue.
The appellate case is captioned as Greenstate Credit Union v.
Hy-Vee, Inc., Case No. 20-8014, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent Greenstate Credit Union, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Stephen Matthew Owen, Esq.
Karen Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
smowen@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
Christopher Paul Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A.
100 Washington Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON & LYNCH
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
glynch@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Lauren S. Frisch, Esq.
Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN & FINK
3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 261-7711
E-mail: lfrisch@bfvlaw.com
cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner Hy-Vee, Inc. is represented by:
Maria Boelen, Esq.
George J. Tzanetopoulos, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 416-8174
E-mail: mboelen@bakerlaw.com
gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey James Lindquist, Esq.
PUSTORINO & TILTON
6600 France Avenue, S., Suite 680
Minneapolis, MN 55435-1814
Telephone: (952) 925-3001
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE: Reisman Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELI REISMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE CONSULTANTS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-16423 (D.N.J., November 18, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant was placing calls to the
Plaintiff's telephone number on or around August 2020 via an
automatic telephone dialing system and with pre-recorded messages
in an attempt to solicit its insurance business from the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his express written
consent to the Defendant to be contacted with an ATDS. Although the
Plaintiff told the Defendant to stop calling, the Defendant ignored
his request and continued calling his phone over ten more times.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint in order to redress injuries
caused by the Defendant's unlawful conduct and to prohibit certain
unsolicited voice calls.
Independent Insurance Consultants Inc. offers extended car
warranties to consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: YZelman@MarcusZelman.com
AMarcus@MarcusZelman.com
INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re
Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, is pending.
On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against
Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities.
On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially
similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court. On
May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two
lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund
Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.
On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had
misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable
market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, rather than to deceptive
sales practices; (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was
inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales;
and (iv) Inogen's decision to focus on sales over rentals of
portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the
Medicare market, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the
court deems proper.
On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint with leave to amend. On January 9, 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint generally alleging substantially
similar claims as those in the previous complaint.
On January 23, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. On September 2, 2020, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and instructed
the defendants to file another motion to dismiss if the parties are
unable to resolve the issues relating to the second amended
complaint.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 28, 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.
Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for
patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors
in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded
in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California.
INSULET CORP: Bid for Fees, Expenses in ATRS Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet 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 plaintiffs'
motion for fees and expenses in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, is still under advisement.
Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain then
current and former executives of the Company.
Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, alleged that
the Company (and certain then current and former executives)
committed violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects.
On February 8, 2018, the parties executed a binding stipulation of
settlement, under which all claims were released, and a payment was
made into an escrow account for the plaintiffs and the class they
purport to represent.
On August 6, 2018, the Court issued an order approving the
settlement, but took the plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses
under advisement, which motion remains pending.
The Company had previously accrued fees and expenses in connection
with this matter for the amount of the final settlement liability
that was not covered by insurance, the amount of which was not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Insulet Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells insulin
delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes.
Insulet Corporation was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Acton, Massachusetts.
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces Mullen ADA Suit in W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InterContinental
Hotels Group Resources, LLC, et al. The case is styled as BARTLEY
MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC and SIX CONTINENTS
HOTELS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01718-CCW (W.D. Pa., November 9,
2020).
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand.
InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC operates a chain of
hotels. The Company offers amenities such as restaurants, room
service, swimming pools, fitness centres, and comfortable lounge.
InterContinental Hotels Group Resources serves worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE: Aguiluz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRNA AGUILUZ v. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1
to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV42791 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., November 6, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated aggrieved employees, seeking Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) penalties under the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees were misclassified by the Defendants as exempt
employees. She further asserts that the Defendants failed to pay
statutory minimum wage, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to
provide meal and rest periods, failed to pay all wages due to them
within any time period, failed to provide wage statements, failed
to pay earned and due wages upon separation of employment, failed
to keep accurate and complete payroll records, and failed to
reimburse business-related expenses and costs.
Plaintiff started working for the Company approximately 19 years
ago. Her last date of employment was August 14, 2020. The
Plaintiff's latest position was that of alternate payments
manager.
Founded in 1914, the International Institute of Los Angeles aimed
to help immigrant women adapt to life in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the consolidated Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al. and Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al.,
class action suits.
On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.
On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.
These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018.
On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, the CAC. The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased our common stock between March 2, 2015
and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the company
and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the results of the company's Phase 2b trial and the
prospects of the company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.
The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.
The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court issued
an order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in the
CAC.
On November 18, 2019, the company and the individual defendants
filed an answer to the complaint. On June 12, 2020, the lead
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
On August 11, 2020, the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition
to lead plaintiff's motion for class certification.
This case is currently in the discovery phase.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Retirement Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss Cambridge Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., et
al., has been denied and trial is currently set for May 24, 2021.
On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against the Company, current and former
Company executives, and various Onex-related entities alleging
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants and Onex-related entities.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the action.
On May 8, 2020, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
were named as co-lead plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint on
June 22, 2020.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
29, 2020, which was denied on October 26, 2020. Trial in this
matter is currently set for May 24, 2021.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Molded Doors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to interior
molded doors in Canada.
On May 15, 2020, Developpement Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company and Masonite Corporation in the
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served
on the company on September 18, 2020.
The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since
October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from the
company or Masonite.
The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between us and Masonite to
agree on prices, the distribution of market shares and/or the
production levels of interior molded doors and that the plaintiffs
suffered damages in that they were charged and paid higher prices
for interior molded doors than they would have had to pay but for
the alleged anti-competitive conduct.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.
On September 9, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action against
JELD-WEN and Masonite in federal court in the province of Ontario,
which was served on us on September 29, 2020 (the "Ontario
Action").
The Ontario Action makes substantially similar allegations to the
Quebec Action and the putative class is represented by the same
counsel.
The Company believes both the Quebec Action and the Ontario Action
lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: March 16 Final Fairness Hearing on Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the court set March
16, 2021 as the date for the final fairness hearing of the
settlement in the putative class action suit entitled, In Re:
Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation.
On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
other similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and one of the company's competitors in the
doors market, Masonite Corporation in the Eastern District of
Virginia.
The company subsequently received additional complaints from and on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors.
The suits were consolidated into two separate actions, a Direct
Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action. The suits allege
that Masonite and JELD-WEN violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
and in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related state law antitrust
and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a scheme to
artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the prices of
interior molded doors in the United States.
The complaints sought ordinary and treble damages, declaratory
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes the claims lack merit and vigorously defended
against the actions. On September 18, 2019, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the
lawsuits, dismissing various state law claims and limiting
plaintiffs' damages claims to a four-year period (from 2014-2018)
under the applicable statute of limitations.
Together with Masonite, the company filed motions to oppose class
certification in both the Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser
Actions on May 19, 2020.
On August 31, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the Direct Purchaser Action.
In exchange for a full release of claims through the date of
preliminary court approval of the settlement, each defendant agreed
to pay $28.0 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement
class.
In addition, on September 4, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered
into a separate settlement agreement to resolve the Indirect
Purchaser Action.
Each defendant agreed to pay $9.75 million to the named plaintiffs
and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims
through the execution date of the settlement agreement.
The court entered a minute order preliminarily approving the
settlements on October 8, 2020 and set March 16, 2021 as the date
for the final fairness hearing.
JELD-WEN said, "The Company continues to believe that the
plaintiffs' claims lack merit and has denied any liability or
wrongdoing for the claims made against the Company. The settlement
agreements remain subject to final court approval and other
conditions."
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JETSWEAT LLC: Martinez Balks at Automatic Subscription Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., an individual v. JETSWEAT LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-02310-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., November 5, 2020) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated arising from
the Defendants' offer of "free" services and products that violate
the California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted the
Defendant's offer of a "free" trial online fitness
service/subscription and related products.
According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to present the
automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms,
including its full cancellation policy, in a clear and conspicuous
manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the
offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was
fulfilled; and (b) charges consumer credit or debit cards without
first obtaining "affirmative consent" to automatically renewing
charges in violation of the California Business & Professions
Code.
As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to
the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded.
JetSweat LLC is a streaming fitness platform providing access to
top boutique studio classes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
JOGINDER FOOD: Faces Singh Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANDEEP SINGH, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JOGINDER FOOD MART INC. d/b/a Shell Food Mart,
JOGINDER SINGH a/k/a Joginder Singh Bhagtana, and BACCHAN SINGH
a/k/a Bachan Singh, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-09590 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 15, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective and class
action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about March
20, 2020 through on or about September 5, 2020 to work at the
Defendants' minimart attached to the Shell gas station at 233 Myers
Corners Road, Wappingers Falls, NY 12590.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly, willfully, and
maliciously failed to pay him and other similarly situated
employees at least the New York minimum wage for each hour worked,
and their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep full and accurate
records of their employees' hours worked and wages paid, and
knowingly, willfully, and maliciously failed to provide them wage
statement in accordance with the NYLL's Section 195.3.
Joginder Food Mart, Inc. d/b/a Shell Food Mart operates a minimart.
Joginder Singh a/k/a Joginder Singh Bhagtana is a part-owner of and
the Alcoholic Beverage Control principal for the Joginder Food
Mart, Inc. Bacchan Singh a/k/a Bachan Singh is also a part-owner of
Joginder Food Mart. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2020, that the appeal in the putative class action suit entitled,
Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., is still
pending.
On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.
The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California
law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned
client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs.
The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.
On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.
On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which eliminated certain affiliated entities and individuals as
defendants, withdrew the claims under the Securities Act, added
claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the
"Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law
claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified
allegations.
In response to the amended complaint, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. In the plaintiffs' opposition brief filed on September
9, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew their Investment Advisers Act
claims.
On November 12, 2019 the district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and entered judgment
in favor of the defendants.
On December 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's order dismissing the case.
Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit on appeal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2020, that the company continues to defend a discrimination class
action suit entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.
On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and the company (JFC) were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former
financial advisor under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the
defendants discriminated against the former financial advisor and
other financial advisors and financial advisor trainees on the
basis of race.
On July 27, 2018, two named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding allegations of discrimination and retaliation under 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
retaliation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
On November 26, 2018, three named plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.
The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.
Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland FLSA Related Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.
On March 13, 2018, Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) and
Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors.
The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the
defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from
departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to
financial advisor trainees among other claims.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.
On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the
plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019.
On March 30, 2020 the court partially granted the defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven
of the ten causes of action it purported to state.
The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely
upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well
as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed
various state law claims.
JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts
and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Petition for Certiorari in McDonald Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2020, that the petition for certiorari filed by the objector in
class action suit entitled, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al., has been denied.
On August 19, 2016, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC),
Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the
Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which
was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC and denied in
part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.
On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court.
The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz
plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.
The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a
preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement
reached among the parties.
Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court
entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final
approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by
the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.
On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment
approving the settlement. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the objector's appeal and
affirmed the district court's approval of the class action
settlement.
On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals
for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020. A petition for
certiorari the objector filed on May 11, 2020 seeking review of the
Court of Appeals' decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was denied by
the Supreme Court on October 5, 2020.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Watson Suit Preliminarily Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2020, that the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement in Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies
L.L.L.P., et al.
On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and the company (JFC) were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed by two former financial
advisors in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Sacramento County.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial
advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain
categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates
the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law.
The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief.
On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by
the parties.
On June 5, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.
JOYY INC: Faces Hershewe Suit Over 26.4% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
ED J. HERSHEWE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOYY INC. f/k/a YY, INC., DAVID XUELING LI, BING JIN,
and ERIC HE, Case No. 2:20-cv-10611 (C.D. Cal., November 20, 2020)
seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
JOYY securities between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020,
inclusive.
On April 28, 2016, the Company, then called YY, Inc., filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 and was signed by
Defendant Li. Attached to the 2015 20-F were certifications
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) signed by
Defendants Li and He attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all
fraud. This was followed by a series of disclosures that the
Company filed with the SEC regarding its Annual Reports within the
Class period.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operational and financial results, which were
known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically
overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the
majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company
utilized these bots to effect a round-tripping scheme that
manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders and (5) as a
result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters
Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things,
had: (i) reported fraudulent revenue; (ii) component businesses
that were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (iii)
acquired BIGO as part of a scam that benefitted corporate insiders.
The report further alleged that up to 90% of JOYY's live revenue
was fake and that the Company JOYY engaged in a round-tripping
scheme where the majority of the live performers' gift revenue came
from themselves and JOYY-controlled bots.
On this news, JOYY's American Depository Receipts (ADRs) fell
$26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close at $73.66 per share on
November 18, 2020, damaging investors, the suit says.
JOYY Inc., f/k/a YY, Inc., operates a global social media platform.
The Company offers platform which enables users to interact with
each other in real time through online live media by creating,
sharing, and enjoying a vast range of entertainment content and
activities. JOYY serves customers in China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Interchange Fees Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal by
certain merchants in the class action seeking primarily monetary
relief over interchange fees remains pending.
Groups of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class
action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well as
certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card
interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of
antitrust laws.
In 2012, the parties initially settled the cases for a cash
payment, a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and
modifications to certain credit card
network rules.
In 2017, after the approval of that settlement was reversed on
appeal, the case was remanded to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate decision.
The original class action was divided into two separate actions,
one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking
primarily injunctive relief.
In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary
relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior
settlement agreement. Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants
collectively contributed an additional $900 million to the
approximately $5.3 billion previously held in escrow from the
original settlement.
In December 2019, the amended agreement was approved by the
District Court. Certain merchants appealed the District Court's
approval order, and those appeals are pending.
Based on the percentage of merchants that opted out of the amended
class settlement, $700 million has been returned to the defendants
from the settlement escrow in accordance with the settlement
agreement.
The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues
separately.
In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions
raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as
against the Firm and other banks, and some of those actions remain
pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to face investigations and lawsuits related to LIBOR and
Other Benchmark Rate matters.
JPMorgan Chase has responded to inquiries from various governmental
agencies and entities around the world relating primarily to the
British Bankers Association's London Interbank Offered Rate
("LIBOR") for various currencies and the European Banking
Federation's Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR"). The Swiss
Competition Commission's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to
which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues.
In December 2016, the European Commission issued a decision against
the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European
antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal
of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal
is pending.
In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
related to benchmarks, including U.S. dollar LIBOR during the
period that it was administered by the BBA and, in a separate
consolidated putative class action, during the period that it was
administered by ICE Benchmark Administration.
These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial
purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
In these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in
various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either
individually or collectively manipulated various benchmark rates by
submitting rates that were artificially low or high.
Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or
other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in
these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust
claims seeking treble damages.
In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it
was administered by the BBA, the Firm has resolved certain of these
actions, and others are in various stages of litigation.
The District Court dismissed certain claims, including antitrust
claims brought by some plaintiffs whom the District Court found did
not have standing to assert such claims, and permitted certain
claims to proceed, including antitrust, Commodity Exchange Act,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and common law claims.
The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for lack of
standing have filed an appeal.
The District Court granted class certification of antitrust claims
related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the
defendants and denied class certification motions filed by other
plaintiffs.
In the consolidated putative class action related to the time
period that U.S. dollar LIBOR was administered by ICE Benchmark
Administration, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The Firm's settlements of putative class actions related to Swiss
franc LIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and the Singapore
Swap Offer Rate ("SIBOR"), the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference
Rate, and one of the putative class actions related to U.S. dollar
LIBOR remain subject to court approval.
In the class actions related to SIBOR and Swiss franc LIBOR, the
District Court concluded that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, and plaintiffs' appeals of those decisions are
pending.
In addition to the actions pending or consolidated in the Southern
District of New York, in August 2020, a group of individual
plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting antitrust claims in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that the Firm and other defendants were engaged in an
unlawful agreement to set LIBOR and conspired to monopolize the
market for LIBOR-based consumer loans and credit cards. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Lobevero Alleges Spoofing of Metals Futures
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LOBEVERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JAMES DIMON;
JENNIFER PIEPSZAK; and MARIANNE LAKE, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05590 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2020) is a securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired JPMorgan securities between
February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, from January 1, 2009 until December 31,
2015, traders at the Defendants manipulated the prices of precious
metals futures and options contracts using a technique called
"spoofing" whereby traders placed electronic orders to buy and sell
such futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders
before execution. Such spoof orders injected materially false and
illegitimate signals of supply and demand into the market and were
intended to induce other market participants to trade against the
Defendants' genuine orders.
The spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the
prices of such precious metals futures and options contracts to
prices that were more favorable to the Defendants, creating a false
appearance of activity in the market and induced other market
participants to trade at more favorable prices.
On November 6, 2018, the Department of Justice announced in a press
release that former JPMorgan precious metals trader John Edmonds
pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and spoofing conspiracy. On
August 20, 2019, the DOJ announced that another JPMorgan employee,
Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges, and had done so
with the knowledge and consent of his supervisors.
On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was
nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges. According to
sources, the settlement was to be for a record nearly $1 billion.
On this news, shares of JPMorgan stock fell $1.53 per share, or
approximately 2%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23,
2020.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. provides global financial services and retail
banking. The Company provides services such as investment banking,
treasury and securities services, asset management, private
banking, card member services, commercial banking, and home
finance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Precious Metals Futures Suit Stayed Until May 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the consolidated
putative class action suit related to alleged manipulation of
precious metals futures has been stayed through May 2021.
The company previously reported that it and/or certain of its
subsidiaries had entered into resolutions with the U.S. Department
of Justice, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC")
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which,
collectively, resolved those agencies’ respective investigations
relating to historical trading practices by former employees in the
precious metals and U.S. treasuries markets and related conduct
from 2008 to 2016.
The Firm entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") with
the DOJ in which it agreed to the filing of a criminal information
charging JPMorgan Chase & Co. with two counts of wire fraud and
agreed, along with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, to certain terms and obligations as set forth
therein.
Under the terms of the Data Protection Act (DPA), the criminal
information will be dismissed after three years, provided that
JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC fully comply with all of their obligations.
Across the three resolutions with the DOJ, CFTC and SEC, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC agreed to pay a total monetary amount of approximately $920
million. A portion of the total monetary amount includes victim
compensation payments.
Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Firm and certain former employees, alleging a precious
metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive
acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of
New York.
The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February
2019, and the consolidated action is stayed through May 2021.
In addition, several putative class actions have been filed in the
United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois
and Southern District of New York against the Firm, alleging
manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures and options, and bringing
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints
also allege unjust enrichment.
The actions in the Northern District of Illinois have been
transferred to the Southern District of New York.
A putative class action complaint has also been filed under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against the Firm and certain
individual defendants on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares
during the putative class period alleging that certain SEC filings
of the Firm were materially false or misleading in that they did
not disclose certain information relating to the above-referenced
investigations.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
KABLE GROUP: Faces Kinateder Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KINATEDER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE KABLE GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00935-DRC (S.D. Ohio, November 16, 2020) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
illegal "straight time for overtime" pay practice in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant since 2014 as a Project
Manager.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, he was compensated the same hourly rate for all hours
worked. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek,
the Defendant deprived him of overtime at a rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
The Kable Group, LLC provides staffing services to its clients
across Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
3208 Clinton Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 815-9500
E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Melodie Arian, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
marian@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
KIRKLAND'S INC: Appeals Gennock Case Ruling to Pa. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kirkland's Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ASHLEY GENNOCK and JORDAN BUDAI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KIRKLAND'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 88 WDM 2020, in
the Superior Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
Kirkland's handed them paper receipts on several occasions that
displayed more than the last five digits of their credit card
numbers, contrary to the express requirements of the law.
The appellate case is captioned as Gennock, et al. v. Kirkland's
Inc., Case No. 335 WAL 2020, in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents Ashley Gennock and Jordan Burdai,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (724) 656-1555
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
Defendant-Petitioner Kirkland's, Inc. is represented by:
Robert Eugene Day, III, Esq.
John G. Papianou, Esq.
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 772-7507
E-mail: rday@mmwr.com
jpapianou@mmwr.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Burnell Accord Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that a plaintiff has taken an appeal from the court's
decision granting final approval of the settlement in the class
action suit initiated by John Burnell.
On March 22, 2010, John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated filed a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.
In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter.
In January 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.
The plaintiff appealed the court's decision granting final approval
of the settlement.
Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of September 30, 2020.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Rudsell Deal Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that a plaintiff has taken an appeal from the court's
decision granting final approval of the settlement in the class
action suit initiated by James R. Rudsell.
On April 5, 2012, James R. Rudsell, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated instituted a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.
In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In
January 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
The plaintiff appealed the court's decision granting final approval
of the settlement. The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of September 30, 2020
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Settlement Reached in Julian Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the parties in the class action suit initiated by Pamela
Julian, reached a settlement.
On December 29, 2015, Pamela Julian, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated filed a class action suit in United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, against Swift
Transportation Co., Inc. and Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona
LLC.
The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: 1)
failure to pay minimum wage for the first day of orientation; 2)
failure to pay minimum wage for time spent studying; 3) failure to
pay minimum wage for 16 hours per day; and 4) failure to pay
minimum wage for the first eight hours of sleeper berth time.
In December 2019, the court awarded damages for failure to pay
minimum wage for 16 hours per day.
In August 2020, the parties reached settlement in this matter.
Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of September 30, 2020."
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.
KNIGHTS MATTRESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Jariwala Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISHNA JARIWALA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHTS MATTRESS & FURNITURE LLC;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02247-H-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.knightsmattressfurniture.com/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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, including the Plaintiff.
Knights Mattress & Furniture LLC is a family owned home furniture
and mattresses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
KRIS KLINE: Court Certifies Two Classes in Lucero-Gonzalez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Guadalupe
Lucero-Gonzalez, v. Kris Kline, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00901-DJH-DMF (D. Ariz), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
2. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.
Rule 23:
-- The Pretrial Class, defined as:
"all current and future persons held by Defendants
Kline, Gonzalez, and Washington in pretrial detention
at Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex
('CoreCivic')", and
-- The Post-Conviction Class, defined as:
"all current and future persons held by Defendants
Kline and Carvajal in post-conviction detention at
CoreCivic";
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Tracy Ann Peuplie, James Tyler
Ciecierski, and Marvin Lee Enos as class representatives
for the Pretrial Class; and appointing the Plaintiff
Claudia Romero-Lorenzo as class representative for the
Post-Conviction Class;
4. dismissing the Plaintiff Lucero-Gonzalez from this action;
and
5. directing the Clerk of Court to update the docket to
reflect that Plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Lucero-Gonzalez has
been released from custody and is no longer a Plaintiff in
this action.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs argue that this requirement is met
because "Defendants have subjected all proposed class members to
the same policies or practices that expose Plaintiffs to an
unreasonable risk of serious harm in violation of the Due Process
Clause or the Eighth Amendment." They further argue, as to relief
requested, that "[e]ach class requests uniform relief in the form
of certain declarations and an injunction" and that "[i]n order to
comply with the requested injunction, the Defendants would have to
implement facility-wide changes applicable to, and for the benefit
of, all class members. Because the requirements for class
certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b) are met, the Court will grant Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification and certify the two proposed classes in this
action."
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals confined by CoreCivic, claiming that
Defendants have failed to take reasonable measures to protect them
from exposure to COVID-19 in violation of their due process rights
and their rights to be free from "cruel and unusual punishment"
under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3krLFJZ at no extra charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Wilson Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY; and ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS, INC.
d/b/a PICK 'N SAVE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00936-DRC (S.D. Ohio, November
17, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in
one or more workweeks because Defendants classify them as exempt
from overtime.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an assistant
manager at a Pick 'n Save store located in Sussex, Wisconsin
between approximately April and September 2019.
Kroger is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in
1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Company owns and operates, directly
and/or through its wholly owned subsidiary Roundy's Supermarkets,
Inc., over 100 Pick 'n Save stores in Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Meizlish, Esq.
Deborah Grayson, Esq.
MEIZLISH & GRAYSON
830 Main Street, Suite 999
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-4700
Facsimile: (513) 345-4703
E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net
drgrayson@fuse.net
- and -
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Choate Sues Board Vote Over Illegal Plan Amendment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Choate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of Kushco
Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Nicholas Kovacevich, Eric Baum,
Barbara Goodstein, Donald Hunter and Dallas Imbimbo, Defendants,
and Kushco Holdings, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01904
(C.D. Cal., October 1, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, together
with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
disbursements of this action, including attorneys, accountants and
experts' fees and such other and further relief for breach of
fiduciary duties.
KushCo markets and sells complementary products and services to
customers operating in the regulated medical and recreational
cannabis and cannabidiol industries, including packaging products,
vape hardware, hydrocarbons and solvents, natural products,
stainless steel tanks, custom branded anti-counterfeit and
authentication labels, processing supplies, accessories, branding
solutions and retail services focused on CBD mass distribution,
industry education and compliance.
According to the KushCo Board, during the annual meeting held on
February 21, 2019, KushCo stockholders approved an amendment which
would increase the maximum number of shares authorized for issuance
by 3,000,000 shares. Choate alleges that the stockholders did not
actually approve the said amendment under the company's applicable
voting standard. KushCo acknowledged that a subsequent amendment to
the company's 2016 Stock Incentive Plan to increase the maximum
number of shares authorized for issuance thereunder by 10,000,000
shares was not approved due to the inclusion of broker non-votes.
KushCo asserted that only the affirmative vote of a majority of
votes cast on the matter were required for the amendment to carry.
The Board claimed that approval of the amendment required the
affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast at the Annual
Meeting in person or by proxy. The Board counted stockholders'
votes under the incorrect standard erroneously explicated in 2019.
Based on this incorrect standard, the Board declared that the
amendment to the company's 2016 Stock Incentive Plan had carried
and subsequently awarded invalid equity grants, asserts the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1370 Broadway, 5th Floor – #5100
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 231-1500
Fax: (646) 851-0076
Email: wfields@fksfirm.com
ckupka@fksfirm.com
sshukurov@fksfirm.com
- and -
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 612-7222
Email: fortunato@bespc.com
LANDMARK PROPERTY SERVICES: Brill Sues Over Cancelled Lease
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Brill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Landmark Property Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-62033 (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2020), seeks statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all
amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of equitable
monetary relief, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs of suit resulting from breach of
contract and unjust enrichment and for violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
Landmark Property Services owns and operates private student
housing communities at or near colleges and universities throughout
Florida, including "The Nine at Tallahassee" at Florida State
University where Brill leased a student housing apartment.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities throughout
Florida have closed. University campuses had to be vacated to
preserve the safety of the students including dormitories.
Plaintiff executed Lease Agreements with the Defendant but did not
receive the bargained-for-services. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
LAUREL, MS: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Firefighters, Johnson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LONNIE JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI, Case No.
2:20-cv-00201-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., November 10, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
by not paying all overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff for all
hours worked.
Mr. Johnson is a 61-year old male resident of Jones County,
Mississippi and was hired as a firefighter by the City of Laurel,
Mississippi on October 16, 1992.
Laurel is a city in and the second county seat of Jones County,
Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq.
Nick Norris, Esq.
WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
Jackson, MS 39216-4972
Telephone: (601) 968-0000
Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com
LIBERTY LATIN: VTR Finance Facing Multiple Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Latin America Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that VTR Finance is a
defendant in class action suits related to consumer complaints
regarding VTR's broadband service and capacity during the
pandemic.
On August 25, 2020, VTR Finance (VTR) was notified that the Chilean
National Consumer Authority ("SERNAC", the Spanish acronym for
Servicio Nacional del Consumidor) had filed a class action
complaint against VTR in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago.
The complaint relates to consumer complaints regarding VTR's
broadband service and capacity during the pandemic and raises
claims regarding, among other things, VTR's disclosure of its
broadband speeds and aggregate capacity availability and VTR's
response to address the causes of service instability during the
pandemic.
VTR was also notified in August about two additional class action
complaints filed by consumer associations (ODECU and AGRECU) making
similar claims and allegations.
The class action complaint of ODECU was filed in the 21st Civil
Court of Santiago, and the class action complaint of AGRECU was
filed in the 26th Civil Court of Santiago.
The complaint of SERNAC and ODECU seeks (i) the Court declare that
VTR has infringed the rules of the Consumer Protection Law; (ii)
the responsibility of VTR for such infractions and if so, establish
the corresponding fines; and (iii) compensatory damages.
In the case of AGRECU, the complaint only seeks compensatory
damages.
On October 22, 2020, VTR was notified of a fourth class action
complaint filed by Conadecus in the 16th Civil Court of Santiago
alleging that VTR did not adhere to certain call center, technical
visit and service level requirements under applicable law.
Liberty Latin said, "We believe that the allegations contained in
the complaints are without merit, in particular as it relates to
VTR’s service and response during the pandemic and intend to
defend the complaints vigorously. We cannot predict at this point
the length of time that these actions will be ongoing."
Liberty Latin America Ltd. provides various telecommunications
services. Its services primarily include video, broadband Internet,
fixed-line telephony, and mobile services. Liberty Latin America
Ltd. was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Denver, Colorado.
LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross v.
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822.
On March 8, 2019, the company acquired Asterias Biotherapeutics,
Inc. via merger. In the acquisition, each outstanding share of
Asterias common stock was converted into 0.71 Lineage common
shares.
On October 15, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
challenging the Asterias Merger.
This action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and names Lineage,
the Asterias board of directors, one member of Lineage's board of
directors, and certain stockholders of both Lineage and Asterias as
defendants.
The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on
behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under
Delaware law.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading
up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the Asterias Merger
consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by
Asterias with the Commission omitted certain material information,
which allegedly rendered the information disclosed materially
misleading.
The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified,
the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
On February 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants
filed their replies on March 13, 2020.
On June 23, 2020, a hearing on the motions to dismiss occurred. On
September 21, 2020, the Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to Lineage and certain members of the Asterias board of
directors, and it granted the motion to dismiss as to all other
defendants.
On October 30, 2020, the remaining defendants filed an answer to
the complaint.
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs.
The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative
retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with
demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating
cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Ray Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Trina Ray, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Trina Ray, et al. v. California
Dep't of Soc. Servs., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04239-PA-SK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on June 7,
2017, Plaintiff Trina Ray filed a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action against the California Department of Social
Services ("CDSS") and the County of Los Angeles for unpaid overtime
wages from January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016. She filed this
collective action on behalf of herself and a putative collective of
In-Home Supportive Services ("IHSS") providers. On July 21, 2017,
she filed a First Amended Complaint, in which she dropped CDSS as a
defendant and added Sasha Walker as a plaintiff.
On August 22, 2019, the Court of Appeals considered the effective
date of regulations that (1) a district court vacated before their
original effective date; (2) an appellate court upheld, reversing
the district court; and (3) the agency then decided not to enforce
until a date after the original effective date. The court agreed
with the district court that the County of Los Angeles is not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity but disagree as to the
effective date of the regulations, which it hold is the original
effective date of January 1, 2015. The court thus affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.
The appellate case is captioned as Trina Ray, et al. v. Los Angeles
County Department, et al., Case No. 20-56245, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 25, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Trina Ray and Sasha Walker Mediation Questionnaire
is due on December 2, 2020;
-- Appellants Trina Ray and Sasha Walker opening brief is due on
January 25, 2021;
-- Appellee Los Angeles County Department of Public Social
Services answering brief is due on February 25, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TRINA RAY and SASHA WALKER, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
- and -
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
helland@nka.com
Defendant-Appellee LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL
SERVICES, Erroneously Sued As County of Los Angeles, is represented
by:
Jennifer Mira Hashmall, Esq.
Jason Tokoro, Esq.
Jeffery White, Esq.
MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-4400
E-mail: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com
jtokoro@millerbarondess.com
jwhite@millerbarondess.com
LUCILE SALTER: Faces Masuda Suit Over Illegal Background Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY MASUDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD,
a California corporation; STANFORD HEALTH CARE, a California
corporation; STANFORD HEALTH CARE ADVANTAGE, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV372980
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., November 13, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful practices that allegedly violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and similar California laws.
The Plaintiff contends the Defendants routinely acquire criminal,
consumer, and investigative consumer and/or consumer credit
reports, referred to collectively as "background reports," to
conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective,
current and former employees and use information from background
reports in connection with their hiring process without providing
proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance
with the law.
As a result of the conduct, the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated current, former and
prospective employees, seeks compensatory and punitive damages due
to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA.
The Defendants are health care providers based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
david@setarehlaw.com
LVNV FUNDING: Faces Allen TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02252-AJB-LL (S.D. Cal., November 18, 2020) brings this
complaint as a class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant began contacting him
sometime in or around March 2020 on his cellular phone number
ending in "7893". The Defendant allegedly engages in mass
communication practices in an attempt to collect on alleged debts
by routinely making calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice
message and/or via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS).
Moreover, the cellular phone number that the Defendant use to place
calls to the Plaintiff was assigned to a cellular telephone service
for which the Plaintiff incurs charges for incoming calls and text
messages.
The Plaintiff contends that he never provided his prior written
consent to the Defendant to contact him using an ATDS. As a result
of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff was personally
affected and suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest
in privacy.
LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
LVNV FUNDING: Valentine Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Johnathan Valentine filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Johnathan Valentine v. LVNV
Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01161, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Johnathan Valentine v. LVNV
Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-3179, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dated November 9, 2020.
The Appellant's brief is due on or before December 21, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHNATHAN VALENTINE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-6160
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
Defendants-Appellees LVNV FUNDING, LLC and RESURGENCE LEGAL GROUP,
P.C. are represented by:
David M. Schultz, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
151 N. Franklin Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 704-3445
E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
M&T BANK: High Court Appeal Filed in Jaroslawicz Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants M&T Bank Corporation, et al., filed with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
matter styled M&T BANK CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners v. DAVID
JAROSLAWICZ, et al., Respondents, Case No. 20-678.
Response is due on December 17, 2020.
Petitioners M&T Bank Corporation, et al., petition for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case titled DAVID JAROSLAWICZ
v. M&T BANK CORPORATION; HUDSON CITY BANCORP INC.; THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT G. WILMERS, BY ITS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES ELISABETH ROCHE
WILMERS, PETER MILLIKEN, AND HOLLY McALLISTER SWETT; RENE F. JONES;
MARK J. CZARNECKI; BRENT D. BAIRD; ANGELA C. BONTEMPO; ROBERT T.
BRADY; T. JEFFERSON CUNNINGHAM, III; GARY N. GEISEL; JOHN D. HAWKE,
JR.; PATRICK W.E. HODGSON; RICHARD G. KING; JORGE G. PEREIRA;
MELINDA R. RICH; ROBERT E. SADLER, JR.; HERBERT L. WASHINGTON;
DENIS J. SALAMONE; MICHAEL W. AZZARA; VICTORIA H. BRUNI; DONALD O.
QUEST; JOSEPH G. SPONHOLZ; CORNELIUS E. GOLDING; WILLIAM G. BARDEL;
SCOTT A. BELAIR BELINA FAMILY; JEFF KRUBLIT, Appellants, Case No.
17-3695.
The questions presented are:
(1) Whether Item 105 of Regulation S-K, which obligates public
companies to discuss material risk factors in registration
statements, periodic SEC filings, and stock-based merger proxies,
requires a company with knowledge of a general risk factor to
ascertain and disclose facts that may bear on that general risk
factor that are not otherwise within the company's actual
knowledge; and
(2) Whether Item 105 of Regulation S-K requires companies to
identify and discuss potentially unlawful business practices or
inadequate compliance procedures in circumstances where neither the
company nor any regulator has identified an issue or concern and
the company believes that such practices or procedures are
compliant with applicable law.
This petition concerns the scope of Item 105 of Regulation S-K,
which governs the disclosure of material factors that make an
investment in the registrant or offering speculative or risky. The
Third Circuit held that Item 105 requires issuers to (i) disclose
facts they did not know at the time of disclosure and that were
only later brought to their attention and (ii) acknowledge
misconduct they do not believe themselves to have committed and
which no regulator has accused them of committing. This holding
splits with the First Circuit, which requires an issuer to disclose
risk factors under Item 105 only if the issuer had actual knowledge
of those risks, and with the Second Circuit, which does not require
an issuer to preemptively confess to misconduct that has not
resulted in any regulatory or other sanction.
The Third Circuit's decision, if allowed to stand, will
significantly reduce the pleading and evidentiary standards
plaintiffs must meet in bringing claims under the federal
securities laws and will expose thousands of public companies
participating in the U.S. securities markets to significant,
hindsight-based liability.
This case arises from M&T's acquisition of Hudson City via a
cash-and-stock merger. Though Hudson City's shareholders
overwhelmingly approved the merger in April 2013, and would
ultimately realize a total profit of nearly $2 billion, the Federal
Reserve withheld approval of the transaction until September 2015
in light of its concerns regarding M&T's Bank Secrecy Act and
anti-money laundering compliance program. In addition, in October
2014, M&T entered into a $2 million settlement with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau to resolve allegations regarding
certain consumer checking practices, without admitting to any
wrongdoing. When the Federal Reserve subsequently approved the
M&T/Hudson City merger, it cited this CFPB settlement as relevant
to its assessment of M&T's compliance program.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners M&T Bank Corporation, et al., are
represented by:
William Daniel Savitt, Esq.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
E-mail: WDSavitt@wlrk.com
MACROGENICS INC: Hill Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by
Todd Hill.
On September 13, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by
Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Scott Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. James Karrels,
as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading
statements regarding the Company's SOPHIA trial.
On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.
The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
MacroGenics said, "However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this time and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action."
MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Nix Strougo Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled Barbara
Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., is pending.
In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its
former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K.
Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between
February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to
the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and
safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead
plaintiff was designated by the court on June 25, 2020, and on July
30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiff alleging an expended putative class period of May 3, 2016
through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau,
Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well
as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell,
Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey
(collectively with Trudeau, Reasons, Kegler and Harbaugh, the
"Strougo Defendants").
The amended complaint claims that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the CMS
had informed the Company that it was using the wrong base date
average manufacturer price for calculating the Medicaid rebate the
Company owed CMS for Acthar Gel each quarter since 2014; (ii) the
Company's reported net income was improperly inflated in violation
of GAAP; (iii) the Company's contingent liabilities associated with
the rebates owed to CMS for Acthar Gel were misrepresented; (iv)
the Company's fiscal year 2019 guidance for Acthar Gel net sales
was false; (v) the Company failed to disclose material information
regarding the cases captioned Landolt v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No.
1:18-cv-11931-PBS (D. Mass.) (Landolt) and U.S. ex rel. Strunck v.
Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0175-BMS (E.D. Pa.) (Strunck), or
the related investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
(vi) the Company failed to disclose that the clinical trials for
Acthar Gel were purportedly initiated in order to make it appear
that alternative revenue opportunities for Acthar Gel existed and
thus offset the expected 10% decline in net sales as a result of
the rebates the Company now had to pay.
On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably
estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss
associated with this lawsuit.
Mallinckrodt said, "As to the Company, this litigation is subject
to the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and
the Company has requested an order from the Bankruptcy Court
enjoining proceedings against the individual named defendants."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Putative Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the court in City
of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., entered an order
acknowledging the automatic stay of the litigation as to the
Company pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al.
The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other things,
include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants.
As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any
Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain
others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present.
Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws, as well as
various state law claims in connection with the distribution and
sale of Acthar Gel.
In January 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, which was granted in part in January 2019. The
court dismissed one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with the
exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims.
The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in
anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price
of Acthar Gel.
To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the other
named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive
distributor.
The Company intends to continue defend itself in this matter.
At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the
expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this
lawsuit.
On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the
automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to
§362 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Recovery Claims Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the court in MSP
Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al., entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of the
litigation as to the Company pursuant to Section 362 of the
Bankruptcy Code.
In October 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP
Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2018, which was
granted in January 2019 with leave to amend. MSP filed the
operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019,
in which it asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws
and state consumer protection laws and names additional defendants.
The complaint alleged that the Company unlawfully maintained a
monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S.
rights to Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching
anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling
Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.
The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all third-party
payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who
have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for,
provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to
reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August
1, 2007 to present.
In March 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint with leave to amend. MSP filed an amended complaint
on July 3, 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the
expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this
lawsuit.
On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the
automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to
Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Steamfitters Local Union No. 420.
In July 2019, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company and United BioSource
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, proceeding as Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, et al.
The complaint makes similar allegations as those alleged in related
state and federal actions that were filed by the same plaintiff's
law firm in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland, and
includes references to allegations at issue in a pending qui tam
actions against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c); conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c);
violations of the Pennsylvania (and other states) Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection laws; negligent
misrepresentation; aiding and abetting/conspiracy; and unjust
enrichment. The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief.
In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in
this matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MANNKIND CORP: Order Denying Bid to Amend Complaint Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in
the putative class action suit in Israel has taken an appeal from a
court decision that denied his motion to amend his claim to the
Supreme Court of Israel.
Following the public announcement of Sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC's
election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the
subsequent decline in the company's stock price, two motions were
submitted to the district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department
for the certification of a class action against MannKind and
certain of its officers and directors.
In general, the complaints allege that MannKind and certain of its
officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.
In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions
without prejudice.
In the remaining action, the district court ruled in October 2017
that U.S. law will apply to this case.
The plaintiff appealed this ruling, and following an oral hearing
before the Supreme Court of Israel, decided to withdraw his appeal.
Subsequently, in November 2018, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the certification motion. In September 2019, the plaintiff
brought a motion to amend his claim, which the court denied in
January 2020. The plaintiff has appealed this denial to the Supreme
Court of Israel.
MannKind said, "We will continue to vigorously defend against the
claims advanced. If we are not successful in our defense, we could
be forced to make significant payments to or other settlements with
our stockholders and their lawyers, and such payments or settlement
arrangements could have a material adverse effect on our business,
operating results or financial condition. Even if such claims are
not successful, the litigation could result in substantial costs
and significant adverse impact on our reputation and divert
management’s attention and resources, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial
condition."
MannKind Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products
for diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. MannKind
Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.
MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Stemmelin filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated November 7, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled John
Stemmelin, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Matterport, Inc., a Delaware corporation, RJ
Pittman, Dave Gausebeck, Matt Bell, Carlos Kokron, Peter Hebert,
Jason Krikorian and Mike Gustafson, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-04168-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit involves the false enticement of a lucrative
business opportunity presented by Matterport, along with its
business directors, who each engage in the advertising and sale of
"business opportunities," also referred to under certain state laws
as "seller assisted marketing plans," relating to the sale of
Matterport 3D cameras and associated services.
On November 7, 2020, the court granted the Defendants' move to
dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as John Stemmelin v. Matterport,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80159, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 24, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner, JOHN STEMMELIN, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Timothy Douglas Cohelan, Esq.
J. Jason Hill, Esq.
Isam Charles Khoury, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101-5305
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
jhill@ckslaw.com
ikhoury@ckslaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
Defendants-Respondents MATTERPORT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, RJ
PITTMAN, DAVE GAUSEBECK, MATT BELL, CARLOS KOKRON, PETER HEBERT,
JASON KRIKORIAN, and MIKE GUSTAFSON are represented by:
Michael Kenneth Johnson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 362-2580
E-mail: michael.johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
E-mail: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
MDL 2981: Transfer of 11 Google Antitrust Suits to D.D.C. Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PAIGE v. GOOGLE LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03158 (D.D.C.), asks the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer related actions to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under MDL No.
2981, IN RE: Google Inc., Antitrust Litigation, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The actions are:
-- Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05671 (N.D. Cal.);
-- Carr v. Google LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05761 (N.D. Cal.);
-- Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. v. Google LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05792 (N.D. Cal.);
-- Peekya Services, Inc. v. Google LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-06772 (N.D. Cal.);
-- Bentley et al v. Google LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-07079 (N.D. Cal.);
-- McNamara v. Google LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-07361 (N.D. Cal.);
-- Herrera v. Google LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-07365 (N.D. Cal.);
-- Carroll v. Google LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-07379 (N.D. Cal.);
-- In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 5:20-cv-03556 (N.D. Cal.);
-- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. GOOGLE LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.);
-- PAIGE v. GOOGLE LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03158 (D.D.C.).
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]
MEP NATIONWIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Saylor Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS SAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. MEP NATIONWIDE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02825-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., November 13, 2020)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a plumber in or around
August 2018.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was suffered or permitted
by the Defendant to regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, the Defendant knowingly, willfully and intentionally
failed to compensate the Plaintiff the applicable minimum hourly
wage and the applicable minimum overtime wage.
Moreover, the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a contract
in which the Defendant was under duty to compensate the Plaintiff
for all hours worked. Due to the Defendant's failure to compensate
the Plaintiff for all hours worked for pay periods from November
16, 2018 through December 20, 2018, the Defendant has breached the
contract causing the Plaintiff to suffer damages.
MEP Nationwide, LLC provides plumbing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason J. Yasinsky, Esq.
NAHON, SAHAROVICH & TROTZ, PLC
488 S. Mendenhall
Memphis, TN 38117
Tel: (901) 683-7000
E-mail: jyasinsky@nstlaw.com
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Matousek Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL C. MATOUSEK, TERESA J. CANTU and LEAH M. MALONEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDAMERICAN
ENERGY COMPANY, THE PENSION AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 4:20-cv-00352-CRW-CFB (S.D. Iowa, November 13,
2020) is a class action brought pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
MidAmerican Energy Company Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciaries
and its members during the Class period for breaches of their
fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, from
November 13, 2014 through the date of judgment, the Defendants, as
"fiduciaries" of the MidAmerican Energy Company Retirement Savings
Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they
owed to the plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of
the plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately
review the plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that
each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2)
maintaining certain funds in the plan despite the availability of
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories; and (3) failing to control the plan's
recordkeeping costs.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions of a
reasonable fiduciary and cost the plan and its participants
millions of dollars, the suit says.
Des Moines, Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy Company provides energy
services. The Company offers electricity, natural gas, wind energy,
gas transportation, and other related services. MidAmerican Energy
serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Bright, Esq.
PUGH HAGAN PRAHM, PLC
425 E. Oakdale Boulevard, Suite 201
Coralville, IA 52241
Telephone: (319) 351-2028
Facsimile: (319) 351-1102
E-mail: dbright@pughhagan.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
MIDWEST RECOVERY: Wells Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01203 (D.N.M., November 17,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to debt collector
company, Checkmate.
According to the complaint, Checkmate contracted with the Defendant
to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, on or about November 25,
2019, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff
deceptively attempting to lure the Plaintiff into a phone call by
not providing information in order to pressure the Plaintiff to
make immediate payment. In addition, the letter confused the
Plaintiff because the Defendant did not clearly identify who the
creditor is by describing the Current Creditor as "Pacific Rim
Alliance Corp" and the Original Creditor as "Checkmate".
The complaint asserts that the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff with a proper initial communication letter under the
FDCPA. As a result of its deceptive misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.
Midwest Recovery Services, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MIMEDX GROUP: Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Stayed Until Dec. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that parties in the
consolidated purported securities class action suit headed by
Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, agrees to stay the proceedings
until December 18, 2020 to allow for mediation.
On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two
purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc.,
et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et
al. filed February 26, 2018).
The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as
lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company,
Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher
M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP.
The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended , Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018.
Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various
defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended
complaint.
The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint against the Company,
Michael Senken, Pete Petit, William Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert &
Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March
30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020.
The parties have agreed to stay the proceedings until December 18,
2020 to allow for mediation.
MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and
an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and
distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected
processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based
in Marietta, Georgia.
MIZUHO BANK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Laydon Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order dated October 10, 2014, entered in the
lawsuit entitled JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BANK OF
TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE SUMITOMO TRUST AND BANKING CO.,
LTD., THE NORINCHUKIN BANK, MITSUBISHI UFJ TRUST AND BANKING
CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION, J.P. MORGAN CHASE
& CO., J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES PLC, MIZUHO CORPORATE BANK, LTD., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE
SHOKO CHUKIN BANK, LTD., SHINKIN CENTRAL BANK, UBS AG, UBS
SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD., THE BANK OF YOKOHAMA, LTD., SOCIETE
GENERALE SA, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK
OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS SECURITIES JAPAN LIMITED, BARCLAYS BANK PLC,
CITIBANK, NA, CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK, JAPAN LTD., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS JAPAN, INC., COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE
RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC,
LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED, R.P. MARTIN HOLDINGS
LIMITED, MARTIN BROKERS (UK) LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, AND JOHN DOE
NOS. 1-50, Case No. 12-cv-03419, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The case involves the Defendants' alleged manipulation of Euroyen
Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (TIBOR), Yen London Interbank Offered
Rate for Japanese Yen (LIBOR), and the prices of Euroyen TIBOR
futures contracts from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010. The
Plaintiff brings this action to recover for losses that he
allegedly suffered when he initiated short positions in Euroyen
TIBOR futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange during
the Class period, claiming that the Defendants' manipulation of Yen
LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR affected the prices of his Euroyen TIBOR
futures contracts. Specifically, according to the Plaintiff, the
Defendants made artificial Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions
to the British Bankers' Association in London and the Japanese
Bankers' Association in Tokyo in order to profit from derivatives
involving Japanese Yen. The Defendants argue that the alleged
conduct at issue is so predominantly foreign as to render the
Plaintiff's claims impermissibly extraterritorial.
The appellate case is captioned as Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.,
Case No. 20-3775, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Margaret C. MacLean, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
Defendants-Appellants Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., Barclays Bank
PLC, and Societe Generale are represented by:
David R. Gelfand, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5520
E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com
- and -
Leigh Nathanson, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 790-5359
E-mail: lnathanson@kslaw.com
- and -
Steven Wolowitz, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2500
E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com
MORNINGSIDE ACQUISITION: Faces Gonzalez Suit in NY State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A request for judicial intervention was filed on November 10, 2020,
in the case styled Monica Gonzalez and Bettye McElrath on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Morningside
Acquisition I, LLC d/b/a Morningside Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center, Case No. 28406/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Bronx Cty.)
The lawsuit alleges personal injury-related damages.
The case is assigned to Judge Joseph E. Capella.
Morningside Acquisition I, LLC, d/b/a Morningside Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, is a skilled nursing facility in Bronx, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
The Defendant is represented by:
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 323-7000
MOSAIC CO: Cruz Suit Over Exposure of Hazardous Substances Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc. is named in
the "Cruz Litigation".
On May 5, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against The
Mosaic Company and two co-defendants.
The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, due to
phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.
On July 30, 2020, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action,
reportedly because of procedural defects.
On August 27, 2020, the same plaintiffs filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, FL against the
company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc.
and the same co-defendants.
The Mosaic said, "We will vigorously defend this matter."
The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.
MOSAIC CO: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the examination in
the Uberaba EHS class action is pending and the parties are
negotiating a settlement.
In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that the company's predecessor company in Brazil
did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.
This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company was fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.
The company filed its defense, claiming that it complied with these
labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the
inspectors in 2010 was abusive.
Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations. The examination is currently pending and the parties
are negotiating a settlement.
The amount claimed in the proceeding is $26.7 million.
The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.
MOUNTAIRE CORP: Appeals Order in Cuppels Suit to Del. High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mountaire Corporation, Mountaire Farms, Inc., and
Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. filed an appeal from the
interlocutory order of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware
in the lawsuit entitled GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION, MOUNTAIRE FARMS INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF
DELAWARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. S18C-06-009 CAK.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on September
11, 2020, Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of the Superior Court of Delaware
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
On June 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against Mountaire Corp. ("MC"), an Arkansas corporation,
Mountaire Farms Inc. ("MFI"), a Delaware corporation, and Mountaire
Farms of Delaware, Inc. ("MFODI"), a Delaware corporation. On July
20, 2018, the Defendants filed, inter alia, a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules
of Civil Procedure for lack of personal jurisdiction over MC.
On Oct. 12, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On
Oct. 26, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction over MC.
In an Order dated Aug. 22, 2018 and clarified on Nov. 7, 2018, the
Court stayed discovery in the case, pending disposition of, inter
alia, the Motion. On February 22, 2019, the Court reopened
discovery for the limited purpose of deciding whether MC has
sufficient contacts with Delaware to permit the Court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over it.
After a stay occasioned by an unsuccessful attempt at mediation,
the Court, on Nov. 26, 2019, ordered counsel for the parties to
notify it if the Motion was ripe for adjudication. Subsequently
counsel for the parties informed me that there was disagreement on
the issue of ripeness of the Motion.
In a Jan. 9, 2020 Pretrial Scheduling Order, Judge Karznitz ordered
that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction over Defendant
MC be completed by July 1, 2020, and that MC not be required to
file an Answer until thereafter. On January 29, Defendants MFI and
MFODI filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint. The issue of
personal jurisdiction over MC is now finally ripe for adjudication,
more than two years since the Complaint was filed.
In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims against
MC, MFI and MFODI, jointly and severally, for alleged negligence,
gross negligence, recklessness, negligence per se, nuisance,
trespass, and unjust enrichment. These claims stem from the
Plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants owned, operated and
managed a chicken processing plant in Millsboro, Delaware
("Facility") and caused unsafe quantities of wastewater and sludge
generated, treated and/or disposed of at that plant to be released
on lands near the Plaintiffs' residences.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, individually and
collectively: (1) participated in a material way in owning and
operating the Facility and associated real property used for
disposal of wastewater and sludge over the relevant time period;
(2) through their individual and joint direction, control, and
coordination developed, implemented, and carried out the projects,
policies and procedures that proximately caused the pollution and
damages detailed herein; (3) hired, fired, managed, supervised, and
instructed employees, agents and contactors involved in the conduct
described herein; (4) promoted and marketed the "Mountaire" brand
and products in Delaware; (5) collectively and individually
transacted business, solicited business, sold service and products,
and entered into contracts causing them to earn revenue directly or
indirectly from such business activities conducted in and directed
at Delaware; and (6) otherwise engaged in conduct that contributed
to the pollution and damages described therein.
The appellate case is captioned as MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION, MOUNTAIRE
FARMS INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.,
Defendants-Below/Appellants, v. GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Below/Appellees, Case No. 385,2020, in the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION, MOUNTAIRE FARMS INC.,
and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC. are represented by:
F. Michael Parkowski, Esq.
Michael W. Teichman, Esq.
Elio Battista, Jr., Esq.
PARKOWSKI, GUERKE & SWAYZE, P.A.
1105 North Market Street, 19th Fl.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-3300
E-mail: mparkowski@pgslegal.com
mteichman@pgslegal.com
ebattista@pgslegal.com
- and -
John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
Lisa C. McLaughlin, Esq.
PHILLIPS, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
1200 North Broom Street
Wilmington, DE 19806
Telephone: (302) 655-4200
E-mail: jcp@PMHDELaw.com
lcm@PMHDELaw.com
- and -
Timothy K. Webster, Esq.
Gordon D. Todd, Esq.
Erika L. Maley, Esq.
James R. Wedeking, Esq.
Daniel J. Hay, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
E-mail: twebster@sidley.com
gtodd@sidley.com
emaley@sidley.com
jwedeking@sidley.com
NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Faces Fischler ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naturopathica
Holistic Health, Inc. The case is captioned as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09022-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Naturopathica Holistic Health, Inc. is a New York-based skin care
and herbal remedy products provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 764-7171
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
NEW ENTERPRISE: Faces Tesaro Shareholder's Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reported that an ex-Tesaro Inc. shareholder sued its
former leaders and private equity backers in Delaware Chancery
court over its $5.1 billion sale to GlaxoSmithKline Plc, claiming
New Enterprise Associates engineered an underpriced deal because of
concerns involving a new fund it was launching. The Chancery Court
complaint also targets Citigroup Inc., which advised on the deal,
and several former members of Tesaro’s board. It doesn't name GSK
or Tesaro, which merged with the drug giant's oncology division.
GlaxoSmithKline plc (LSE/NYSE: GSK) announced in January 2019 that
it has successfully completed the acquisition of TESARO, Inc. an
oncology-focused company based in Waltham, Massachusetts, for an
aggregate cash consideration of approximately $5.1 billion (GBP4.0
billion). The transaction was announced on December 3, 2018.
The Delaware case is captioned JOHN M. KIHM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVID M. MOTT, LEON O.
MOULDER, DR. MARY LYNNE HEDLEY, TIMOTHY R. PEARSON, KAVITA PATEL,
LAWRENCE M. ALLEVA, GARRY A. NICHOLSON, PASCALE WITZ, DR. BETH
SEIDENBERG, NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATES 13, L.P., NEA PARTNERS 13,
L.P., NEA 13 GP, LTD, NEA 15 OPPORTUNITY FUND, L.P., NEA PARTNERS
15-OF, L.P., NEA 15 GP, LLC, NEW ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATES, INC., NEA
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CITIGROUP INC., and CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC., Case No. 2020-0938 (Del. Ch.).
NEW JERSEY: Tung Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kevin K. Tung filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion dated November 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled KEVIN KERVENG TUNG, Plaintiff v. STUART RABNER, in his
official capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
State of New Jersey, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3-19-cv-00871, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Plaintiff is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state
of New Jersey. In 2009, Tung represented Mrs. Janet Fou in a
no-fault divorce proceeding with her husband, Mr. Joe Fou.
According to Tung, during this representation, he "prepared an
English [language p]roperty [s]ettlement [a]greement for the Fous."
Tung maintains that at the time of the representation, he
understood that "the only binding [p]roperty [s]ettlement
[a]greement was going to be the one [he] was going to prepare" for
the Fous. Tung acknowledges, however, that the Fous asked him to
notarize, but not review, a "Chinese Agreement" between Mr. and
Mrs. Fou "regarding their divisions of properties."
Two years after the conclusion of the divorce proceeding, Mrs. Fou
moved to set aside the final judgment of divorce. With the
assistance of new attorneys, Mrs. Fou argued that there were
actually four Mandarin agreements between the couple. Mrs. Fou
alleged that the property settlement prepared by Tung differed
substantially from these documents. According to Mrs. Fou, Tung's
services were procured by her husband and Tung dealt largely with
Mr. Fou rather than with her, his actual client. When moving to
reopen the divorce proceedings, Mrs. Fou maintained that she
"question[ed] the appropriateness of Mr. Tung's representation of
me and [Mr. Fou's] role in orchestrating my execution of an English
[a]greement, which failed to mention our previous[ly] executed
agreements.
In 2019, Tung filed the instant action against the Superior Court
of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201. Tung argued that the
Superior Court violated his substantive and procedural due process
rights when it vacated the final judgment of divorce. Moreover,
Tung maintained that the Appellate Division violated his
substantive and procedural due process rights when it affirmed the
trial court's decision to set aside the final judgment of divorce
without providing him an opportunity to intervene or present a
defense. Tung also maintained that this allegedly unconstitutional
action tainted his malpractice case and rendered him unable to
receive a fair trial. In a November 26, 2019 Opinion, Chief Judge
Wolfson dismissed the initial Complaint on sovereign immunity
grounds. While dismissing the initial Complaint, Judge Wolfson
granted Tung leave to file an amended complaint in which he
proposed to seek prospective relief from state officers pursuant to
the Ex Parte Young doctrine.
The District Court finds that Tung's procedural due process claims
are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and do not properly fall
within the Ex Parte Young exception to Defendants' immunity to
suit. The Court dismissed Tung's amended complaint with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Tung v. Superior Court of
New Jersey, et al., Case No. 20-3348, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, November 19, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KEVIN K. TUNG, Esq., for himself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY; STAURT J.
RABNER, Intended to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
New Jersey; HON. GLENN A. GRANT, Intended to the Acting
Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts; and CARMEN
MESSANO, Intended to be the Presiding Judge for Administration for
the Appellate Division of the Superior, are represented by:
John Regina, Esq.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
124 Halsey Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 648-7811
E-mail: john.regina@dol.lps.state.nj.us
NEW YORK BAGELS: Dominguez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERTIN DOMINGUEZ; ISRAEL ACOLTZI; JOSE ALEJANDRO MOLINA LUNA; LUIS
GONZALO CARCHI; and RUBEN CEGUEDA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK BAGELS EATERY
INC. (D/B/A NY BAGELS & CAFE); NYU BAGELS & CAFE, INC. (D/B/A NY
BAGELS & CAFE); CHON, JOO S.; and PYONG, SU SON, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09701 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Dominguez and Acoltzi were employed by the Defendants as
delivery drivers.
Plaintiffs Molina and Gonzalo were employed as cooks.
Plaintiff Cegueda was employed by the Defendant as a grill worker.
New York Bagels Eatery Inc. owns, operates, and controls a bagel
shop, located at 587 1st Ave, New York, NY 10016 under the name "NY
Bagels & Cafe." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed from Gulino Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated September 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-3367, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed October 1, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Candida Martinez is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to its merger with
C&J Energy Services, Inc.
On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger among the Company, C&J Energy Services, Inc. (C&J) and King
Merger Sub Corp.
In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby the following complaints have been filed: (i)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J
stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, (ii) two putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder
on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members
of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, (iii)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported
stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or
affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of
directors, and (iv) one putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company
on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
members of the Company's board of directors.
The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v.
C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D.
Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.)
In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and
abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in
connection with the proposed C&J Merger allegedly omitted or
misstated material information.
The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the C&J Merger, unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees.
C&J, the Company and the other named defendants believe that no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the
C&J Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder
Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and
the Company filed a Form 8-K on October 11, 2019 making certain
supplemental disclosures in connection with the C&J Merger.
Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods,
Bushansky and Palumbos actions voluntarily dismissed their claims
as moot on October 16, 2019, October 29, 2019 and November 20,
2019, respectively.
Neither of the remaining Stockholder Actions have been served or
otherwise necessitate further response, but the Company continues
to believe that the allegations therein lack merit and no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable law, and
intends to defend itself vigorously should service be sought and
the claims become active.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.
NIAGARA FALLS, NY: Salerno Appeals W.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dolly Salerno, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled Dolly Salerno, and Diane Amantia, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. City of
Niagara Falls; Niagara Falls Water Board; Occidental Petroleum
Corporation; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Glenn Springs
Holdings, Inc.; GHD Services, Inc; Miller Springs Remediation
Management, Inc.; Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.; Gross PHC
LLC; David Gross Contracting Corp; Gross Plumbing and Heating Co.,
Inc.; NRC NY Environmental Services, Inc.; Roy's Plumbing, Inc.;
Scott Lawn Yard, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-304, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.
The case arises from efforts to clean up and control toxic
chemicals discovered decades ago at Love Canal, in Niagara Falls,
New York. Plaintiffs Dolly Salerno and Diane Amantia claim that the
City of Niagara Falls, other governmental organizations and various
private entities failed in the remediation and management of the
Love Canal site, resulting in toxic chemicals spreading into local
neighborhoods. As a result of exposure to such chemicals,
Plaintiffs have allegedly suffered mental, physical and financial
harm.
On September 30, 2020, the District Court granted the Defendants'
joint motions to dismiss asserting that the Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by federal law and are too conclusory to state plausible
claims for relief. Certain individual Defendants have offered
additional arguments for dismissal, including defenses related to
notice and timeliness.
The appellate case is captioned as Salerno v. City of Niagara
Falls, Case No. 20-3749, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Dolly Salerno and Diane Amantia, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Lilia Factor, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
400 Broadhollow Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
E-mail: lfactor@napolilaw.com
Defendants-Appellees City of Niagara Falls; Niagara Falls Water
Board; Occidental Petroleum Corporation, individually and as
successor in interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation;
Occidental Chemical Corporation, individually and as successor in
interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation; Glenn Springs
Holdings, Inc.; GHD Services, Inc., individually and as successor
in interest to Conestoga Rovers & Associates; Miller Springs
Remediation Management, Inc.; Sevenson Environmental Services,
Inc.; Gross PHC LLC, Individually and as Successor in Interest to
David Gross Contracting Corp and/or Gross Plumbing and Heating Co.,
Inc.; David Gross Contracting Corp.; Gross Plumbing and Heating
Co., Inc.; NRC NY Environmental Services, Inc., individually and as
successor in interest to OP-Tech Environmental Services; Roy's
Plumbing, Inc.; and Scott Lawn Yard, Inc. are represented by:
Kevin M. Hogan, Esq.
Joel Blanchet, Esq.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
1 Canalside, 125 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Telephone: (716) 847-8400
E-mail: khogan@phillipslytle.com
jblanchet@phillipslytle.com
- and -
Thomas Michael O'Donnell, Esq.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS LAW DEPARTMENT
745 Main Street, P.O. Box 69
Niagara Falls, NY 14302
Telephone: (716) 286-4409
Facsimile: (716) 286-4424
E-mail: thomas.odonnell@niagarafallsny.gov
- and -
Cory J. Weber, Esq.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
1600 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 854-3400
E-mail: weber@ruppbaase.com
- and -
Agnieszka Wilewicz, Esq.
HURWITZ & FINE, P.C.
1300 Liberty Building
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 849-8900
E-mail: aaw@hurwitzfine.com
- and -
Rodger P. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP
The Calumet Building
233 Franklin Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-3801
E-mail: rpdoyle@kslnlaw.com
- and -
Robert E. Knoer, Esq.
THE KNOER GROUP, PLLC
424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 332-0032
E-mail: rknoer@knoergroup.com
- and -
Brian Sutter, Esq.
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM LLP
1600 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Buffalo, NY 14203
Telephone: (716) 847-2523
Facsimile: (716) 847-2589
E-mail: bsutter@sugarmanlaw.com
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Faces Eves Suit Over 8.27% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Eves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nikola Corporation, Trevor R. Milton, Mark A. Russell,
and Kim Brady, Case No. 2:20-cv-02168-DLR (D. Ariz., November 10,
2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities
between June 4, 2020 and September 9, 2020, inclusive.
Nikola was founded in 2015 by Defendant Trevor Milton, and in June
2020, the Company's securities began publicly trading on the NASDAQ
after the execution of a reverse merger with VectoIQ Acquisition
Corp. The Company purports to be a "vertically integrated zero
emissions transportation systems provider that designs and
manufactures state of the art battery electric and hydrogen
electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling stations."
According to the complaint, the Company misled investors as to,
among other things: (1) the present capabilities and
manufacturability of the Company's purported fleet of vehicles; (2)
the Company's professed manufacture of component parts for those
vehicles in-house; (3) the Company's capacity and costs to produce
hydrogen; and (4) Nikola's financial, technological, and
operational profile. These misrepresentations were intended to, and
did, present a materially false image of the Company's growth and
success, and has led to inflated financial results and the
artificial inflation of the Company's stock price.
Specifically, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. The Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Milton had
repeatedly misrepresented and/or exaggerated Nikola's financial,
technological, and operational profile; (ii) the foregoing
misrepresentations were intended to, and did, present a materially
false image of the Company's growth and success, thereby
artificially inflating the Company's stock price; (iii) the
foregoing misrepresentations were foreseeably likely to subject the
Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement, along
with reputational harm when the truth came to light; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
As a result, Nikola's stock fell an additional $0.17 per share
during intraday trading, to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020,
an 8.27% decline from its previous close on September 14, the suit
alleges.
Nikola Corporation operates as a zero-emissions transportation and
infrastructure solution provider. The Company is a designer and
manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
William F. King, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
fbalint@bffb.com
bking@bffb.com
- and -
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
imcloughlin@shulaw.com
astewart@shulaw.com
- and -
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
dschubert@sjk.law
nschubert@sjk.law
NORTHSTAR ALARM: $686,000 Awarded to "Braver" Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT H. BRAVER, for
himself and all individuals similarly situated, v. NORTHSTAR ALARM
SERVICES, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, et al., Case No.
5:17-cv-00383-F (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Friot
entered an order:
1. granting the "Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Award":
As requested in Mr. Braver's motion, attorneys' fees
and costs are AWARDED to class counsel for the
plaintiffs in the total amount of $685,923.71
(representing an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $616,666.00 and an award of $69,257.71
for expenses).; and
2. awarding plaintiff Robert H. Braver is AWARDED incentive
award for his service to the class in the amount of
$20,000, to be distributed by the claims administrator
from the settlement fund.
The Court said, "Given Mr. Braver's time and effort invested in
this case for the benefit of the class and his performance in that
role, given the risk to him that despite that time and effort he
might have recovered nothing in this action for either himself or
the class, and given the general purpose of incentive awards, the
court finds that Mr. Braver's requested incentive award of $20,000
-- to which neither NorthStar nor any members of the class have
stated any objection -- is justified."
Northstar Alarm provides security products and services. The
Company offers window and door sensors, keyless car entry, cameras,
locks, and other security systems. Northstar Alarm Services offers
technical services throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IvUPYY at no extra charge.[CC]
NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Underway in Maryland and New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, 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 XOOM Energy, LLC
continues to defend class action suits pending in Maryland and New
York.
XOOM Energy, LLC (XOOM) is a defendant in two purported class
action lawsuits pending in Maryland and New York.
The plaintiffs generally claim that they did not receive the
savings they were promised in their natural gas and electricity
bills.
In the Maryland lawsuit, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
bid to certify the case as a class action on August 18, 2020.
The court is resetting the discovery and trial schedule for the
remaining plaintiffs' individual claims.
In the New York case, XOOM filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted on September 21, 2018, later entering judgment in
XOOM's favor on September 24, 2018.
The plaintiffs in the New York case appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On July 26, 2019, the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the
district court and remanded to the district court with instructions
that plaintiffs be permitted to proceed on their proposed amended
complaint.
This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the
acquisition.
NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.
ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: GTx Merger Suit in New York Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
plaintiff in the merger-related suit, withdrew the appeal with
prejudice, and the case is now dismissed.
On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc., entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as
amended, with privately-held Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. and
Grizzly Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private
Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company. On June 7, 2019, the Merger was
completed. GTx changed its name to Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.,
and Private Oncternal, which remains as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, changed its name to Oncternal Oncology, Inc.
Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware. In 2019, the Delaware Actions
were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
New York Actions name as defendants the company and its former
board of directors.
The New York Actions allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with the company's filing of the
Registration Statement in connection with the Merger.
On September 16, 2019, plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed an
amended complaint, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act related to the value GTx's stockholders
received in the Merger.
The amended complaint seeks damages and other unspecified relief.
On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, on January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on
February 14, 2020, the defendants filed a reply in support of their
motion to dismiss.
On June 23, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, and the plaintiff did not amend his complaint by the July
14, 2020 deadline.
On July 22, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On September 28, 2020, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal with
prejudice, and the case is now dismissed.
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of
cancer. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California.
ONESPAN INC: Continues to Defend Almendariz Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OneSpan 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 securities class action suit entitled, Almendariz v.
OneSpan Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.).
A complaint was filed on August 20, 2020 against OneSpan and
certain of its officers, asserting claims for purported violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain alleged
material misstatements and omissions.
Specifically, the plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges,
among other things, that certain statements about OneSpan's
business were misleading because of the defendants' failure to
disclose that OneSpan purportedly had inadequate internal
procedures and controls over financial reporting and related
disclosures; and OneSpan purportedly downplayed the negative
impacts of immaterial errors in its financial statements.
OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity,
security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate
electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The
company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
OPEN TEXT: Bid to Dismiss Carbonite Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------
Open Text 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 motion to
dismiss filed in the consolidated class action suit related to
Carbonite, Inc.'s Server Backup VM Edition, has been granted.
On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite
Inc., a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class
action complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive
Officer, Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer,
Anthony Folger, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc.,
Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).
The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.
On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS).
On November 21, 2019, the court consolidated the Securities
Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel.
n January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking the
same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019. The
defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10,
2020. The motion was fully briefed in June 2020 and a hearing on
the motion to dismiss the Securities Actions was held on October
15, 2020.
Following the hearing, on October 22, 2020, the court granted with
prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Actions.
Open Text said, "Accordingly, to pursue the Securities Actions
further the plaintiff must now either timely move the court to
alter or amend the judgment or further appeal the dismissal."
Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.
OTELCO INC: Continues to Defend Plumley Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Otelco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit entitled, Patrick Plumley v.
Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA.
On July 27, 2020, Otelco filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Future Fiber FinCo, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of July 26, 2020 by and among the Company, Parent and
Olympus Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with
and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation of the Merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.
On August 20, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its preliminary
proxy statement on Schedule 14A, and on September 9, 2020, the
Company filed with the SEC its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A in each case relating to the special meeting of
stockholders of the Company that was held on October 9, 2020 to,
among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement.
On September 1, 2020, a purported stockholder of Otelco filed a
putative stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Patrick
Plumley v. Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of all public stockholders of Otelco against the Company and
the members of its Board of Directors.
Thereafter, on September 21, 2020, another purported stockholder of
Otelco filed a separate individual lawsuit, captioned Jacob
Scheiner IRA v. Otelco Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-07756-AJN, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Actions generally allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement
or the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain material
information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and
further that the members of the Company's Board of Directors are
liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The relief sought in the Actions includes a
preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the completion of
the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is
completed, costs and attorneys' fees.
While Otelco believes that the disclosures set forth in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and Definitive Proxy Statement complied
fully with applicable law, to resolve the alleged stockholders'
claims and moot the disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential
expense, and delay and to provide additional information to the
company's stockholders, the Company voluntarily supplemented the
Definitive Proxy Statement with additional disclosures filed with
the SEC on October 1, 2020.
Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
law of any of the disclosures set forth therein or in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. To the contrary, the Company denied all
allegations that any additional disclosure was, or is, required.
On October 9, 2020, Otelco's stockholders adopted the Merger
Agreement and approved the Merger.
On November 3, 2020, the Company entered into a contract with
Parent under which the Company has agreed to incur capital
expenditures in connection with network design and engineering
services in existing and new markets. The contract could result in
up to $3.5 million in incremental revenue for the Company over the
next six months.
Otelco Inc. operates 11 rural local exchange carriers serving
subscribers in north central Alabama, central and southern Maine,
western Massachusetts, central Missouri, western Vermont, and
southern West Virginia. The Oneonta, Alabama-based Company is the
sole wireline telephone services provides for three of the rural
communities it serves.
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Putative Class Suit Underway in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, 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 currently pending
before the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of
Missouri.
On April 23, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, alleging that we over-collected taxes on
products sold into the state of Missouri.
Overstock.com said, "No estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss can be made at this time. We intend to vigorously defend this
action."
Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.
OVERSTOCK.COM: Mangrove Partners Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, 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 notice of appeal
was filed in the class action suit headed by The Mangrove Partners
Master Fund Ltd.
On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer in the United States
District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of the Exchange Act.
On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the Company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were
consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019.
The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead
plaintiff in January 2020.
In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against
the company, its president of retail, its former chief executive
officer, and its former chief financial officer.
The company filed a motion to dismiss and on September 28, 2020,
the court granted the company's motion and entered judgment in its
favor.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on October
23, 2020 and filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2020.
Overstock.com said, "No estimates of the possible losses or range
of losses can be made at this time. We intend to vigorously defend
this action."
Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Appeal from Dismissal of Sgarlata Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal from a
ruling in the class action suit entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956-EMC, is still
ongoing.
In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks as part of an ongoing investigation of
security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform.
On December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise
of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6
million customers.
The company had received a number of governmental inquiries,
including from state attorneys general, and the company may be
subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations in
the future.
In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956-EMC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed Shahbazi,
the former chief executive officer of TIO alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The initial complaint alleged that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief.
On March 16, 2018, the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the
original plaintiff who filed the case, as interim co-lead
plaintiffs in the case and appointed two law firms as interim
co-lead counsel.
On June 13, 2018, the interim co-lead plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA,
Inc., and John Kunze (at that time, the Company's Vice President,
Global Consumer Products and Xoom) as additional defendants.
The first amended complaint was purportedly brought on behalf of
all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's
securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company's and TIO's November 10,
2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was false
and misleading because the announcement only disclosed security
vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual security
breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time of the
announcement.
Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on July 13, 2018 and the Court granted the motion,
without prejudice, on December 13, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2019.
The second amended complaint alleges substantially the same theory
of liability as the first amended complaint, but no longer names
Hamed Shabazi as a defendant.
The remaining Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on March 15, 2019, and a hearing was held on July
16, 2019.
The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice on
September 18, 2019; plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and the
appeal is pending.
PayPal said, "We may be subject to additional litigation relating
to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO’s
operations in the future."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform and digital
payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf
of consumers and merchants worldwide. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
PBF HOLDING: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 27
----------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial in the case,
Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is
scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining and the manager of the
company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.
On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification.
On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.
On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion.
The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions. Discovery is ongoing.
Trial currently is scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.
PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PECK CO: Facing Multiple Suits Related to Sunworks Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
The Peck Company Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 3,
2020, that the company is facing multiple suits including a class
action suit related to its merger with Sunworks, Inc.
On August 10, 2020, Sunworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with The Peck Company
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Peck Mercury, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Peck,
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Sunworks,
with Sunworks continuing as the surviving corporation.
On October 12, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware by a purported
stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against each of the
members of the Sunworks Board.
On October 15, 2020, a second complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the District of Delaware by a purported
stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against Sunworks,
Peck, Merger Sub and each of the members of the Sunworks Board.
On October 19, 2020, a third complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board.
On October 20, 2020, a fourth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board.
On October 21, 2020, a fifth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the District of New Jersey by a purported
stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against Sunworks and
each of the members of the Sunworks Board.
On October 22, 2020, a sixth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of California by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks, Peck, Merger Sub, and each of the members of the Sunworks
Board.
On October 23, 2020, a seventh complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of California by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board.
On October 23, 2020, an eighth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Northern District of California by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board.
The First and Sixth Complaints contend, among other things, that
(i) the consideration to be paid to Sunworks stockholders pursuant
to the Merger is inadequate and (ii) the Registration Statement on
Form S-4 filed with the Commission by Peck on October 1, 2020, and
serving as the preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus (the
"Original S-4"), contained materially incomplete and misleading
information regarding the Merger.
The First Complaint further alleges that in facilitating the Merger
for the alleged inadequate consideration and the dissemination of
the preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, each member of
the Sunworks Board breached his or her fiduciary duties.
The Second Complaint contends, among other things, that the
Original S-4 omits material information regarding the Merger,
rendering it false and misleading.
The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Complaints
contend, among other things, that the definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A, filed with the Commission by Sunworks on October 15,
2020, omits material information regarding the Merger, rendering it
false and misleading.
Each of the Complaints seeks injunctive relief and an award of
plaintiff's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees, and other remedies.
The Peck Company Holdings, Inc. operates as a special purpose
entity. The Company was formed for the purpose of issuing debt
securities to repay existing credit facilities, refinance
indebtedness, and for acquisition purposes. The company is based in
South Burlington, Vermont.
PIZZA BAKER: Clark Seeks OK of Notice to Drivers Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald Clark, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, v. Pizza Baker Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-157 (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order authorizing him to send notice of the pendency of this
action to his similarly-situated co-workers consisting of:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at Domino's
Pizza stores owned and/or operated by Pizza Baker, Inc.,
Precision Pizza LLC, Mark Baker, and Lisa Burkett between the
date three years prior to filing of the original complaint
and the date of the Court's Order approving notice."
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at the Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores. The
Plaintiff Ronald Clark alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery
drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive
minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked while
completing deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver the
Defendants' pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their
delivery related expenses.
On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Send
Notice to Similarly Situated Employees, seeking to notify Domino's
delivery drivers nationwide about the case. On May 8, 2018, the
Court granted re Defendants' Motion to Stay, ruling that Defendants
must file their response to the Plaintiff's Motion to Send Notice
14 days after the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss. On
September 23, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On April 13, 2020, the Plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint, limiting his proposed class and
collective to Ohio Domino's delivery drivers. On May 13, 2020, the
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim, which the Court ultimately denied. The Plaintiff moved for
leave to file his Third Amended Complaint, dismissing his claims
against the Domino's Defendants without prejudice, which was
ultimately filed on October 13, 2020. In Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to represent only the delivery
drivers who worked for the Domino's franchise operators who own and
operate the Cambridge, Ohio store where Plaintiff worked and
surrounding stores in Ohio and West Virginia.
A copy of the Revised Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated
Employees dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Kjt2eT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Spencer, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES: Borja Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA ERICA BORJA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG20079162
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., November 5, 2020) is brought against
the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
regular rate wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal
periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees,
and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for the
Defendants in Alameda County, California as a machine operator from
approximately 2010 to July 2020.
Plastikon Industries, Inc. manufactures plastics products. The
Company offers injection molding, mold design and build, part
decoration and assembly, contract manufacturing, thermoforming, and
rotational molding services. Plastikon Industries serves medical,
automotive, and electronics industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
Ani Martirosian, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3l28
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
ani.martirosian@moonyanglaw.com
PORSCHE CARS NA: Porsche Owners Hit Emissions Cheat Device
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashish Chadha and Milton Lee, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Porsche Cars North
America, Inc., Porsche AG, Audi AG and Volkswagen AG Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-06923, (N.D. Cal., October 5, 2020), seeks monetary
and treble damages, appropriate restitution and/or disgorgement,
reasonable attorney fees and expenses and other equitable relief
for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.
Chadha purchased a certified pre-owned 2012 Porsche 911 Carrerra
while Lee purchased a pre-owned 2013 Porsche 911 CS. Both allege
that Porsche concealed the fact that the said vehicles had
emissions systems programmed to be defeated and manipulated during
normal driving conditions and spewed excessive levels of pollutants
during normal driving conditions. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOBI BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05618 (E.D.N.Y., November
18, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about November 3, 2020 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt that the Plaintiff has incurred to
Synchrony Bank. The letter provides the Plaintiff two options on
how to settle his account balance of $2,088.56, either to pay the
full balance in 1 payment of $2,088.56 or through "savings plan" of
1 payment of $1,775.28. The letter also mentions a tradeline
deletion offer to be requested to the three major credit reporting
agencies upon final payment. However, the Defendant made false and
misleading representation as the letter is open to more than one
reasonable interpretation, and omitted material information that
gave the Plaintiff a false understanding of the offer of tradeline
deletion.
As a result, the Plaintiff has incurred an informational injury
because the Defendants deceptively make an offer for tradeline
deletion without properly qualifying and explaining the offer,
thereby causing damaged to the Plaintiff.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 201
POWER PERFORMANCE: Misclassifies Inspectors, Johnson Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNEDY JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER PERFORMANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01471 (W.D. La., November 17, 2020)
brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a coating inspector from
approximately April 2018 to October 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him and other
similarly situated inspectors of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate required by the law.
Despite regularly working in excess of 12 hours each day, 5 to 6
weeks each week as required by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and
other inspectors were only paid by the Defendant the same flat day
rate regardless on the number of hours worked.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified and
continue to misclassify the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
inspectors as exempt from overtime compensation.
Power Performance, Inc. provides pipeline inspection services,
environmental compliance management, and project staffing services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and –
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Tel: (281) 885-8844
Fax: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Glenn Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE E. GLENN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND SERVICES, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-1036 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 17, 2020) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Glenn was employed by the Defendant as staff.
Presbyterian Homes and Services provides independent living,
skilled nursing and support, rehabilitation therapies, meal
preparation, medical transportation, companionship, housekeeping,
and respite care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
PUPBOX INC: Fails to Properly Secure Customer Data, Adamczak Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA ADAMCZAK and REBECCA WOOTEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. PUPBOX, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-10299-JFW-E (C.D. Cal., November 10, 2020) is an action
brought against the Defendant for actual and statutory damages, as
well as punitive damages for negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence per se for violation of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, breach of contract, and violation of the
California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Defendant became the subject of an alleged data breach between
February 11, 2020 and August 9, 2020, due to its negligent failure
to properly safeguard the personal identification information (PII)
of its customers including the Plaintiffs, thereby exposing the
names, email addresses, addresses, credit card numbers, credit card
expiration dates, credit card CVV codes, and Pupbox.com passwords.
According to the complaint, the data breach was conducted through a
prolonged, Magecart-style skimming attack on PupBox's Website. In
other words, hackers implanted virtual software on the checkout
pages of PupBox's Website, which allowed the unauthorized third
party to acquire a copy of the PII entered by customers on PupBox's
Website.
The complaint further asserts that the Defendant failed to take
reasonable measures to protect the personal information of the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class by failing to maintain
appropriate technological and other systems to prevent unauthorized
access and by failing to recognize the data breach in a timely
manner.
PupBox, Inc. operates as a puppy and life stage focused
subscription service company. The Company delivers customized
products and training information to new puppy and dog parents
based on their pet's current stage of development and physical
characteristics. PupBox serves customers in State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
PURA VIDA: Barbosa Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
WESLLEY BARBOSA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. PURA VIDA MIAMI LLC, a Florida company, PURA VIDA HQ
LLC, a Delaware company f/k/a Pura Vida Miami, Inc., and OMER
HOREV, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24713-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November
16, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
October 2015 until on or about May 27, 2020 as a restaurant worker
who performed work in multiple positions, such as dishwasher,
maintenance worker, helper, busser, and food runner.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately an
average of 50 hours per week without being compensated at the rate
of not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants willfully
and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as
required by the laws of the U.S.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to post any notice.
Pura Vida Miami LLC and Pura Vida HQ LLC operate a restaurant and
share common ownership, common management, centralized control of
labor relations, and common offices and interrelated operations.
The Individual Defendant owns and manages the Corporate Defendants.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
yramirez@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Pleas Could Bolster Efforts for Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Balakrishnan of The Canadian Press reports that a Canadian
class action against opioid makers to start the process of getting
certified in a hearing in November, a key test on how courts here
will handle a case that is making waves in the U.S.
The upcoming hearing in Quebec comes after the news that Purdue
Pharma, the company behind OxyContin, will plead guilty to federal
criminal charges in the U.S.
While the company's pleas won't directly play into Canadian
litigation, lawyers are hopeful that the company's admissions will
help bolster their cases.
Purdue's Canadian entities are also among the 34 parties in a
proposed class action lawsuit in Quebec. Mark Meland, a lawyer at
Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin LLP in Montreal who is working on the
case, said preliminary hearings begin in November in preparation
for an official certification decision early next year.
Certification is when a judge greenlights a class action case to go
forward in court.
"While the guilty plea in the U.S. does not have a direct impact on
the Quebec proceedings, the admissions made by Purdue US of its
role in a conspiracy to mislead the public about the risks of using
opioids are consistent with the allegations made in the Quebec
class action proceedings, and gives credence to the allegations
that similar activities would have taken place in Quebec and
Canada," said Meland.
Purdue's guilty pleas in the U.S. are part of a settlement of more
than $8 billion and include charges of conspiracy to defraud the
United States and violating federal anti-kickback laws.
Under the U.S. agreement, Purdue will become a public benefit
company, meaning it will be governed by a trust that has to balance
the trust's interests against those of the American public and
public health, U.S. officials said.
In Canada, provincial officials have pushed for victims here to be
similarly compensated by Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies.
There is the Quebec case, which has its preliminary hearing next
month. A separate British Columbia lawsuit was launched in August
2018 on behalf of all provincial, territorial and federal
governments to recover government health care and other costs of
opioid-related illnesses.
Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova
Scotia have agreed to join the suit against 40 manufacturers,
wholesalers and distributors of opioids in Canada. Manitoba
lawmakers this month put forth a bill to join British Columbia's
suit.
Reidar Mogerman, one of the lead lawyers for the British
Columbia-based class action, said that the case is in the process
of scheduling its own certification hearing, but he expects the
process to be lengthy and hard-fought, as the defendants have
raised numerous grounds of opposition.
"The fact that there has been a criminal guilty plea by one of the
central opioid manufacturers . . . . lends weight and will assist
in our case," said Mogerman of the Purdue announcement.
"It also shows that something really bad has happened in the opioid
industry. And it needs to be rectified. It needs to be shown under
the spotlight of a court case, because it tells you that this huge
crisis that we have may well have been caused by unlawful conduct
that needs to be prosecuted or pursued."
U.S. officials said Purdue is admitting that it impeded the Drug
Enforcement Administration by falsely representing that it had
maintained an effective program to avoid drug diversion and by
reporting misleading information to the agency to boost the
company's manufacturing quotas.
Purdue is also admitting to violating federal anti-kickback laws by
paying doctors, through a speaking program, to induce them to write
more prescriptions for the company's opioids and for using
electronic health records software to influence the prescription of
pain medication.
"Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the
misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed
statement of facts," Steve Miller, who became chairman of the
company's board in 2018, said in a statement.
Purdue's U.S. agreement, which will be detailed in a bankruptcy
court filing in U.S. federal court, comes amid an ongoing criminal
investigation into the company's owners and executives, including
the Sackler family.
The bankruptcy has been recognized in the U.S. and Canadian
provinces have made claims in that case, Mogerman said. This pleas
will impact how claims on the bankruptcy case play out, he said.
Canadian federal public prosecutors have not pursued a parallel
criminal investigation to the U.S., Mogerman said. But he said
there will be impacts from the U.S. investigation on the civil
case, the class action.
"It is further proof that the claims have merit. We say that very
similar, if not identical conduct, occurred in Canada. We say that
conduct was unlawful. And we say it gave rise to harms that we can
collect on in lawsuits," said Mogerman.
"If a party admits to doing something similar in the United States,
and admits that that conduct was criminal, and obviously makes our
case, easier to prosecute in Canada. It doesn't have a direct
application in Canada, but it is an admission to facts that are
important and relevant in Canada." [GN]
QUALCOMM INC: Appeal on Grant of Class Certification Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 27, 2020, that the U.S. Court
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's
appeal regarding the grant of class certification motion.
Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.
In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California.
On May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint alleging that we violated
California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by,
among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents
to the company's competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of
the company's baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to
license the company's entire patent portfolio, entering into
exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging
unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the company's
commitments to standard setting organizations.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from
further unlawful conduct.
On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court
denied the company's motion, except to the extent that certain
claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the court granted that motion on September 27,
2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) granted the company's permission
to appeal the court's class certification order.
On January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending our appeal.
On December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class
certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth
Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal.
QUALCOMM "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 27, 2020, that the company's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the consolidated class action suit
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection
with certain allegations that the company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.
On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief.
On September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 18, 2019, the court denied
the company's motion to dismiss.
On January 15, 2020, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The court has not yet ruled on our motion.
QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 27, 2020, that the court in the
class action suit entitled, In re Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger
Securities Litigation, has granted the company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.
On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and two of its current officers.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose
that the company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.
On January 22, 2019, the court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action.
On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the
same basic relief. On May 10, 2019, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on March 10, 2020, the
court granted the company's motion.
On May 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
and on June 25, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss that
complaint.
On October 8, 2020, the court heard oral arguments on the company's
motion to dismiss, following which it granted its motion and
dismissed the case with prejudice.
QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Class Suits Ongoing in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 27, 2020, that the company
continues to defend consumer class action lawsuits in Canada.
Since November 2017, several other consumer class action complaints
have been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
and the Quebec Superior Court) and Israel (in the Haifa District
Court), each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging violations of
certain of those countries' competition and consumer protection
laws.
The claims in these complaints are similar to those in the U.S.
consumer class action complaints.
The complaints seek unspecified damages.
QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
QUALCOMM INC: Mistry Appeals Ruling in SEA Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gatubhai Mistry, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Carey Camp, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm
Inc., Steven K. Mollenkopf, and George S. Davis, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-01208-CAB-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22,
2020, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action complaint.
The Plaintiff represents a class of those who purchased Qualcomm
stock between Jan. 31, 2018, and March 12, 2018 and who are suing
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Qualcomm is a United
States wireless technology company that manufactures chips and
other technologies for mobile devices. In early November 2017,
Singapore chipmaker Broadcom offered to acquire Qualcomm for $105
billion, or $70 per share.
The Plaintiffs allege that on Jan. 29, 2018, Qualcomm "secretly
filed a voluntary request" for The Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States ("CFIUS") to investigate Broadcom Limited.
CFIUS is a federal interagency committee that reviews certain
investments in United States business to determine whether such
transactions threaten to impair national security. It makes
recommendations regarding such transactions for the President's
ultimate determination.
On Nov. 12, 2017, Qualcomm rejected Broadcom's unsolicited initial
bid. Broadcom responded by mounting a hostile takeover. On Dec. 4,
2017, Broadcom launched a proxy fight. On Dec. 6, 2017, Broadcom
announced that it had initiated a process to redomicile in the
United States. On Jan. 29, 2018, the Defendants filed a unilateral
voluntary notice requesting that CFIUS review Broadcom's offer.
As alleged, the Defendants emphasized value and antitrust concerns
as reasons that investors should vote against Broadcom's directors.
The Defendants maintained that they were engaged in meaningful
negotiations with Broadcom.
The appellate case is captioned as Gatubhai Mistry, et al. v.
Qualcomm, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-56178, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:
-- Appellants Leonard Brenner, Gerald L. Koenig, Gatubhai Mistry
and Vanessa D. Washington opening brief is due on February 16,
2021;
-- Appellees Thomas W. Horton, Paul E. Jacobs, Steven M.
Mollenkopf, Qualcomm, Inc. and Donald J. Rosenberg answering brief
is due on March 17, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GATUBHAI MISTRY, Lead Plaintiff; GERALD L.
KOENIG; LEONARD BRENNER; and VANESSA D. WASHINGTON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Luke Orion Brooks, Esq.
Joseph David Daley, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: lukeb@rgrdlaw.com
joed@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Raphael Janove, Esq.
Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: rjanove@ktmc.com
snirmul@ktmc.com
- and -
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
skaplan@ktmc.com
Defendants-Appellees QUALCOMM, INC., STEVEN M. MOLLENKOPF, PAUL E.
JACOBS, DONALD J. ROSENBERG, and THOMAS W. HORTON are represented
by:
Peter Morgan Adams, Esq.
Koji Fukumura, Esq.
Steven Marc Strauss, Esq.
Craig TenBroeck, Esq.
Cooley LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: (858) 550-6000
E-mail: padams@cooley.com
kfukumura@cooley.com
sms@cooley.com
ctenbroeck@cooley.com
RADNET INC: Faces Lancaster Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radnet, Inc. The case
is captioned as Kelly Lancaster, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v.
Radnet, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-10180-CBM-PD (C.D. Cal., November 5,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged damage to personal property.
The case is assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.
RadNet, Inc. owns and operates outpatient diagnostic imaging
centers. The Company's centers are located throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Robert Noblin, Esq.
GREEN AND NOBLIN PC
4500 East Pacific Coast Highway 4th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90804
Telephone: (562) 391-2487
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
E-mail: jrn@classcounsel.com
- and -
Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
Robert S. Green, Esq.
GREEN AND NOBLIN PC
2200 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 101
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 477-6700
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com
rsg@classcounsel.com
REALNETWORKS INC: Napster to Pay Claims in Next 12 Months
---------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that valid claims are
expected to be paid by Rhapsody International, Inc. doing business
as Napster in the next 12 months.
On January 18, 2019, RealNetworks acquired an additional 42%
interest in Rhapsody International, Inc. (doing business as
Napster) which brought our aggregate ownership to 84% of Napster's
outstanding equity, thus giving RealNetworks a majority voting
interest.
In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class
action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called
"mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other
similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted
musical works."
On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement
terms during a mediation session. The long-form Settlement
Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019.
The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be
calculated on a claims-made basis.
In May 2019, public notice was posted about the settlement
informing purported class members that they could make claims or
object to the settlement, and the claims period ended on December
31, 2019.
The final calculation is not yet complete, but based on preliminary
results; the claimed damages are not expected to be material. Valid
claims are currently expected to be paid by Napster in the next 12
months.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media
applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media.
RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.
REATA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Las Vegas Sands" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LVS) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, and docketed under 20-cv-01958, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise, acquired Las Vegas Sands securities between February 27,
2016 and September 15, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Las Vegas Sands securities
during the class period, you have until December 21, 2020, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Las Vegas Sands was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S., which
offer various amenities.
Las Vegas Sands' properties include, among others, the Marina Bay
Sands resort in Singapore, which operates a casino.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands' casino control measures
pertaining to fund transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was
consequently prone to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among
other issues, the transfer of customer funds to unauthorized
persons and potential breaches in the Company's anti-money
laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably increased
the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as
investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities;
(iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues were
untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On July 19, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that Las Vegas Sands had
settled a lawsuit brought by a former patron, Wang Xi ("Xi"),
meeting his demand for a S$9.1 million ($6.5 million) payment. Xi
reportedly sued the Marina Bay Sands casino in 2019 to recover
S$9.1 million of his funds that the casino allegedly transferred to
other patrons from his casino deposit accounts in 2015 without his
approval, which triggered a probe into the casino by local
authorities. Bloomberg News also reported that the U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") "is also scrutinizing whether anti-money
laundering procedures had been breached in the way the Singapore
casino handles high rollers."
On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $1.41 per share, or
2.9%, to close at $47.28 per share on July 20, 2020.
Then, on September 16, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Marina Bay
Sands "has hired a law firm to conduct a new investigation into
employee transfers of more than $1 billion in gamblers' money to
third parties[.]" The article quoted the Singapore Casino
Regulatory Authority ("CRA") as stating that "there were weaknesses
in [Marina Bay Sands'] casino control measures pertaining to fund
transfers[.]"
On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $2.18 per share, or
4.2%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN]
REATA PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA) between
October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Reata investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Reata class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1970.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient to
support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the
treatment of Friedreich's ataxia ("FA") in the U.S. without
additional evidence; (2) as a result, it was foreseeably likely
that the FDA would not accept marketing approval of omaveloxolone
for the treatment of FA in the U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study
results; and (3) as a result, Reata's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1970.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
RED ROBIN: Settlement Underway in Vigueras and Vasquez Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended October 4, 2020, that the company is
in the process of finalizing the settlement agreement in Manuel
Vigueras v. Red Robin International, Inc. and Genny Vasquez v. Red
Robin International, Inc. suits, which will then be submitted to
the court for approval.
On July 14, 2017, a current hourly employee filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to provide required meal
breaks and rest periods and failed to reimburse business expenses,
among other claims. The case is styled Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin
International, Inc. and is currently pending before the United
States District Court in Santa Ana, California.
In a related action, on September 21, 2017, a companion case,
styled Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International, Inc. was filed and
is currently pending in California Superior Court in Santa Ana,
California and involves claims under the California Private
Attorneys' General Act that partially overlap the claims made in
the Vigueras matter.
In the first quarter of 2020, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class
administration in both cases for an aggregate $8.5 million.
The Company is in the process of finalizing the settlement
agreement, which will then be submitted to the court for approval.
Court approval is required before any settlement agreement between
the parties becomes final.
An additional $4.5 million was accrued to reach the $8.5 million
settlement amount during the Company's first fiscal quarter of
2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Greenwood Village, Colorado-based Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.,
develops, operates, and franchises full-service restaurants with
556 locations in North America. As of December 31, 2017, the
Company operated 480 Company-owned restaurants located in 44 states
and two Canadian provinces. The Company also had 86 franchised
full-service restaurants in 15 states as of December 31, 2017.
RENEW BODY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Massage Staff, Yan Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hong Yan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Renew Body Wellness, Inc., NYC Renew Body Wellness, Inc, d/b/a
Renew Body Wellness, Jun Li, Sam (true name is presently unknown),
Leo (true name is presently unknown), John Does #1-10, Jane Does
#1-10, and Company ABC #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-09401 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 10, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover: (1) compensation for wages paid at
less than the statutory minimum wage; (2) back wages for overtime
work for which the Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime
premium pay; (3) compensation for the Defendants' violation of the
"spread of hours" regulations; (4) compensation for the Defendant's
violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act; (5) liquidated damages;
and (5) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other appropriate
legal and equitable relief pursuant to NYLL and Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants beginning in
about March 2018. Mr. Lu worked as a massage worker for Renew Body
Wellness, Inc. from March 2018 to April 2019, and for NYC Renew
Body Wellness, Inc. from April 2019 to September 13, 2020.
The Defendants own and operate a massage spa and wellness center
located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aihong You, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF AIHONG YOU, PC
9 Mott Street, Suite 600
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (917) 412-3603
Facsimile: (732) 909-2214
E-mail: aihong.you@aihonglaw.com
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Facing COVID-19 Related Putative Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
is facing two putative class action suits alleging
misrepresentations relating to COVID-19 in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.
On October 7, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the company and certain officers, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
alleging misrepresentations relating to COVID-19 in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified
exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020.
On October 27, 2020, a second complaint was filed by another
shareholder against the company and its same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging
the same misrepresentations relating to COVID-19.
As is the case with the first action, the second action seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from
February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020.
Royal Caribbean said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome of
these lawsuits at this time, although management believes the
claims are without merit. Depending on how these cases progress,
they could be costly to defend and could divert the attention of
management and other resources from operations. Accordingly, even
if ultimately resolved in our favor, these actions could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and liquidity."
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. operates as a global cruise company
operating a fleet of vessels in the cruise vacation industries. The
Company operates through brands which primarily serve the
contemporary, premium, and deluxe segments of the cruise vacation
industry which also includes the budget and luxury segments. The
company is based in Miami, Florida.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Consolidate Giuliano & RSC Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants and the plaintiffs in the "Giuliano" and "Rancho's Club
Casino" matters filed a stipulation with the court to consolidate
the Giuliano and Rancho's Club Casino matters.
On September 8, 2020, Rancho's Club Casino, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia
House Casino filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
the company (SGC), Bally Technologies, Inc. and SG Gaming, f/k/a
Bally Gaming, Inc.
In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used those
patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for
automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit,
including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.
Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff’s
complaint is November 9, 2020.
Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them."
On October 16, 2020, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the
Giuliano and Rancho's Club Casino matters filed a stipulation with
the court to consolidate the Giuliano and Rancho's Club Casino
matters.
Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Facing Tonkawa Enterprises Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
is facing a putative class action suit initiated by the Tonkawa
Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises
On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
against Scientific Games Corporation (SGC), Bally Technologies,
Inc. and SG Gaming, f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc.
On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua
Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a
plaintiff.
On October 12, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those
patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for
card shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United
States.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated
United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers
from the defendants on or after September 3, 2016.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of
plaintiff’s costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys; fees
and expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
The parties have submitted a stipulation to the court setting a
deadline for defendants to answer or otherwise plead to the second
amended complaint on or before November 27, 2020.
Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.
On September 15, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee
for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel,
and Rancho's Club Casino, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia House Casino, the
plaintiffs in the Giuliano and Rancho's Club Casino Matters, filed
motions to intervene in the Tonkawa Tribe matter and transfer the
matter to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
The Tonkawa Tribe plaintiffs filed responses to the motions to
intervene on October 20, 2020.
Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Giuliano Putative Class Suit Underway in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Alfred T. Giuliano.
On September 4, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee
for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Scientific Games Corporation (SGC), Bally Technologies, Inc. and SG
Gaming, f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those
patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for
automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the Defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit,
including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.
Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's
complaint is November 9, 2020.
Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them."
Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Raqqa et al. Putative Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
district court dismissed the putative class action suit initiated
by Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc.,
E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lent, in its
entirety
On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc.,
Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo,
and Jason Van Lente filed a putative class action complaint against
Northstar Lottery Group LLC ("Northstar"), IGT Global Solutions
Corporation, and Scientific Games International, Inc. (SGI), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative
classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a
contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at
any time between July 1, 2011 and when Northstar ceased acting as
the private manager of the Illinois Lottery; and (2) all natural
persons who purchased certain Illinois Lottery instant game tickets
between July 1, 2011 and when Northstar ceased acting as the
private manager of the Illinois Lottery.
The complaint alleges that Northstar discontinued certain Illinois
instant-ticket lottery games before all grand prizes were awarded;
that Northstar overstated the odds of winning grand prize tickets;
and that these alleged actions caused economic harm to lottery
players, and to lottery retailers who receive commissions on
winning tickets.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with
contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage, alleged violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust enrichment and
alleged civil conspiracy.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and the award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
On September 15, 2020, pursuant to a settlement that was not
material to SGI, the plaintiffs and defendants jointly filed a
stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice,
with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.
The district court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety on October
16, 2020.
Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
SCIPLAY CORP: Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
initiated by the Police Retirement System of St. Louis and Hongwei
Li.
On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering.
The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class
A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with
SciPlay's initial public offering, which commenced on or about May
3, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at
least $146.0 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the
class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.
On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class
action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively
similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and
substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the
PRS Action (the "Li Action").
On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated
order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single
lawsuit. On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action.
On August 28, 2020, the court issued an oral ruling, granting in
part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Stay in John Good Putative Class Suit Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the stay in the
putative class action suit initiated by John Good, has been
extended.
On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, Scientific Games
Corporation (SGC), and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to
SciPlay's initial public offering.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.
On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an
order resolving the motion to dismiss that is pending in the
SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.
On September 29, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that extended the stay pending a ruling on class certification in
the SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.
The company sadi that they are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. The company believes that the claims in the lawsuit
are without merit.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy 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 plaintiffs'
appeal from a court order dismissing a federal securities class
action suit remains pending.
A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal
securities laws was filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its
officers in July 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SEMPRA ENERGY: June Trial in Aliso Canyon Leak Suit Postponed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy 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 initial trial
previously scheduled for June 2020 for a small number of randomly
selected individual plaintiffs has been postponed, with a new trial
date to be determined by the court.
On October 23, 2015, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)
discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells,
SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in
the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County.
The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by
SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100
injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility.
SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's leading experts
to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, the California
Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was permanently sealed.
SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf of natural gas was
released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility as a
result of the Leak.
As of November 2, 2020, 394 lawsuits, including approximately
36,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas related to the
Leak, some of which have also named Sempra Energy.
All these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney and the federal securities class action
discussed below, are coordinated before a single court in the LA
Superior Court for pretrial management.
In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, individuals and
business entities filed a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case
Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate
lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes.
The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and
violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes
of action also naming Sempra Energy.
The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property
damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs
of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties
associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of
requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and
attorneys' fees.
The initial trial previously scheduled for June 2020 for a small
number of randomly selected individual plaintiffs was postponed,
with a new trial date to be determined by the court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SHANAHAN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Moore Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PETER MOORE and STEPHEN SCHEITHAUER, individually and for
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHANAHAN ENGINEERING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03873 (S.D. Tex., November 13,
2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were hired by the Defendant as hourly
employees, allege that the Defendant did not pay their lawfully
earned overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek. Instead,
the Defendant pay them at the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Shanahan Engineering, Inc. provides construction, commissioning and
plant operation services on large scale projects worldwide,
including the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
SKINCO LLC: Licea Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LICEA, an individual, Plaintiff v. SKINCO LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 20STCV43082 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 10,
2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California's Automatic Renewal Law and the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
Mr. Licea, a blind California consumer, accepted a "free" trial
online Lumin skin care products/subscription and related products
from Skinco LLC, earlier in 2020.
According to the complaint, the Company made and continues to make
offers of "free" services and products that violate California law
in at least three ways. Specifically, the Skinco: (a) fails to
present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service
offer terms, including cancellation terms, most particularly in the
free trial context, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual
proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the
subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) charges
consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining "affirmative
consent" to automatically renewing charges; and (c) fails to
provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or
continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and
information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of
being retained by the consumer.
As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to
the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded, the
suit says.
Skinco LLC operates a Website which markets online Lumin skin care
products/subscriptions and related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement in Veilleux Suit Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court in
Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet,
granted final approval of the settlement in mid-October 2020.
Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet was a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark Holdco in mid-2016,
enrolled customers and conducted advertising, and promotions
allegedly not in compliance with law.
Plaintiffs sought damages for themselves and the purported class,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.
The parties participated in mediation in July 2019 and reached a
settlement.
The court granted final approval of that settlement in mid-October
2020.
The claims period closed September 10, 2020 and customer claims
will be processed by year end, closing this matter.
Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
SPECIAL COUNSEL: Bache Sues Over Attorney Advisors' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BACHE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIAL COUNSEL, INC., and INNOVATIVE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02585
(N.D. Ohio, November 17, 2020) brings this class and collective
action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants beginning on approximately
June 4, 2020 up to the present as an attorney advisor.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not fully and/or
properly pay him for all compensable hours he worked because the
Defendants did not properly calculate his regular rate of pay. The
Defendant allegedly did not include the time the Plaintiff spent on
the tasks integral and indispensable to his principal activity that
were in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Thus, although the
Plaintiff worked up to 84 hours in one workweek, he was not paid at
the applicable overtime rate at one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
According to the complaint, Defendant SC adhered throughout its
operations to the common business practice of requiring non-exempt
employees in their attorney positions to record their hours through
timesheets controlled by Defendant SC and actively monitored by
Defendant IEM.
Special Counsel, Inc. operates as a full-service provider of legal
consulting, attorney recruiting, legal talent, legal technology,
and eDiscovery solutions, among other services.
Innovative Emergency Management, Inc. works with government
agencies and private sector organizations to improve disaster
preparedness, response, recovery and strengthen homeland defense,
counter terrorism, public health, cybersecurity, and public agency
performance, among other services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Tel: (614) 221-4221
Fax: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Aguilar Alleges Injury From Defective Candles
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-01564-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., November 3, 2020) arises from the
practice of the Defendants of manufacturing defective Repel Insect
Repellant Citronella candle that can explode and cause injury when
extinguished.
The Repel Insect Repellant Citronella candle is sold in major
retail stores throughout the United States, including Walmart,
Target, Home Depot, and numerous other retailers nationwide with a
market value for anywhere between $5 to $7.
According to the complaint, because of the faulty safety features,
consumers including the Plaintiff who have purchased the products
are in possession of a very dangerous candle that can explode and
cause injury when extinguished. Specifically, when ultimately
extinguishing the product, in a way in which a reasonable consumer
using a candle would extinguish one, the Plaintiff's candle
exploded, causing him to suffer burns all over his face as the hot
wax and chemicals sprayed all over him.
As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to incur monetary damages in
the form of medical bills which were a direct result of his
injuries caused by the Defendant's faulty and flawed products that
were unsafe and dangerous, the suit says.
Spectrum Brands, Inc. manufactures and markets consumer products.
The Company offers household appliances, batteries, personal care,
pet supplies, lawn and pest control, insect repellent, and portable
lighting products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICAL: Consolidated Hartsock Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Court
dismissed the consolidated class action suit entitled, Glen
Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed
September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central
District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) and Glen Hartsock
v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016
in the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada Case;
No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF).
On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The
parties stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the
Hartsock Action.
These class action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of
its executive officers made false or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material facts about the company's business and
the prospects of approval for its New Drug Application to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) for QAPZOLA in violation of Section
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On July 23, 2019, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with these plaintiffs for a collective settlement
pending court approval.
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement on December 27, 2019, which was granted
on February 19, 2020.
Following notice of the settlement to the class, the Court granted
final approval of the class action settlement on July 28, 2020.
The settlement amount has been paid, and the Court dismissed the
Actions with prejudice on August 12, 2020.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with a
primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and
commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage clinical
and commercial products. The company is based in Henderson, Nevada.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Suits Over Accounting Review Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2020, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2020, that the
company continues to defend three separate private securities class
action lawsuits related to accounting review.
On February 10, 2020, February 24, 2020, and March 24, 2020, three
separate private securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III,
former chief financial officer, Jose Garcia, and former controller
(principal accounting officer), John Gilson.
On April 20, 2020, the Class Actions were consolidated by the
court, and on July 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint which added Shawn Campbell, the Company's
former Vice President for the 737NG and 737 Max program, as a
defendant. Allegations in the Consolidated Class Action include (i)
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the
Company and Messrs. Gentile, Garcia and Gilson, (ii) violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants, and (iii) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder against all
defendants.
On June 11, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed
against the Company, all members of the Company's Board of
Directors, and Messrs. Garcia and Gilson in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Allegations in the
Derivative Action 1 include (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii)
abuse of control, and (iii) gross mismanagement.
On October 5, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed
against the Company, all members of the Company's Board of
Directors, and Messrs. Garcia and Gilson in the Eighteenth Judicial
District, District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. Allegations in
the Derivative Action 2 include (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii)
waste of corporate assets, and (iii) unjust enrichment.
The facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and Derivative
Actions relate to the accounting process compliance independent
review discussed in the Company's January 30, 2020 press release.
The Company voluntarily reported to the SEC the determination that,
with respect to the third quarter of 2019, the Company did not
comply with its established accounting processes related to
potential third quarter contingent liabilities received after the
quarter-end.
On March 24, 2020, the Staff of the SEC Enforcement Division
informed the Company that it had determined to close its inquiry
without recommending any enforcement action against Spirit.
In addition, the facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and
Derivative Actions relate to the Company's disclosures regarding
the B737 MAX grounding and Spirit's production rate (and related
matters) after the grounding.
The Company and individual defendants deny the allegations in the
Consolidated Class Action and the Derivative Actions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
SPRING BANK: Facing Franchi Putative Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company is facing a purported class action suit entitled, Adam
Franchi v. Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, Case No.
1:20-cv-01198.
On September 8, 2020, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, a purported class action (Adam Franchi v.
Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-01198 (D.
Del.)) was filed against the Company, members of the Company's
Board of Directors and F-star, alleging violations of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and as
against the individual defendants, alleging violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
This complaint alleges that the defendants made materially
misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 by allegedly omitting
material information with respect to (i) financial projections
relating to the Company and F-star, (ii) the confidentiality
agreements entered into by the Company prior to its engagement of
Ladenburg, (iii) the process leading up to the execution of the
Exchange Agreement and (iv) any financial analyses performed by
Ladenburg.
The plaintiff in Franchi seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to
enjoin the Exchange; or in the event of consummation of the
Exchange, rescissory damages against the defendants; filing by the
defendants of a Registration Statement deemed not to be materially
misleading by the plaintiff; and attorneys' and experts' fees.
The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.
Spring Bank said, "There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company or any defendant will be successful. At present, the
Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to
these lawsuits."
Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development
of novel therapeutics for the treatment of a range of cancers and
inflammatory diseases using the company's proprietary small
molecule nucleotide platform. The company is based in Hopkinton,
Massachusetts.
STAAR SURGICAL: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
STAAR Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative federal securities class action
suit entitled, In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities Litigation,
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
On August 19, 2020, a putative federal securities class action,
Alwazaan v. STAAR Surgical Co., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
On September 1, 2020, a substantially similar federal securities
class action, Zhang v. STAAR Surgical Co., et al., was filed
against the Company and the same executives in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
On September 11, 2020, the court consolidated the two actions under
the caption In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities Litigation.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company made material
misstatements regarding its sales in China, its marketing spend,
and its R&D expenses.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.
STAAR said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be
determined with certainty, the Company denies any wrongdoing and
will vigorously defend itself against these claims."
STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used
to deliver the lenses into the eye. The company is based in Lake
Forest, California.
STAMPS.COM INC: Appeals Ruling in Karinski Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Stamps.com, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Class Certification Order, dated November 9, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit styled MATT KARINSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STAMPS.COM, INC., et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01828-MWF-SK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The questions presented are: 1. Whether a court ruling on class
certification may refuse to consider direct evidence rebutting the
fraud-on-the-market presumption on the basis that such evidence is
relevant to the merits, contrary to the case, Halliburton Co. v.
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. 2. Whether, under Comcast, a securities
plaintiff may rely upon a model of class-wide damages that
encompasses legal theories that have been dismissed from the case
because they failed as a matter of law.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's purportedly strong
financial results and relationship with USPS. However, these
statements were false and misleading because the Defendants failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's financial results depended on
the manipulation of a USPS reseller program that cost USPS an
estimated $235 million per year; and (ii) as a result, the
Company's business was unsustainable and its financial results were
highly misleading, says the complaint.
On November 9, 2020, the District Court granted class
certification. It made two determinations relevant to the petition.
First, the Court did not address -- or even mention -- Stamps'
evidence that there was no stock price reaction upon the disclosure
of the alleged misrepresentations. Second, the District Court held
that Plaintiff had alleged a damages model sufficient to satisfy
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) predominance.
The appellate case is captioned as Matt Karinski, et al. v.
Stamps.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80160, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 24, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents MATT KARINSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM
are represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jason Forge, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Doug Wilens, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 E. Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: DWilens@rgrdlaw.com
Defendants-Petitioners STAMPS.COM, INC., KENNETH MCBRIDE, KYLE
HUEBNER, and JEFF CARBERRY are represented by:
Christina L. Costley, Esq.
Richard Harold Zelichov, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 788-4485
E-mail: christina.costley@kattenlaw.com
richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com
- and -
Howard Robert Rubin, Esq.
Eric Thomas Werlinger, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
2900 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 625-3534
E-mail: howard.rubin@katten.com
eric.werlinger@katten.com
STARLIGHT TOURS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Tan Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUAYUN TAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. STARLIGHT TOURS INC., LI FANG ZHANG a/k/a Lifang
Zhang, and LEO LIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05557 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 15, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged various willful,
malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from on or about April
13, 2019 through on or about July 24, 2019 as a driver for the
Defendants' bus company.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was not paid by the Defendants for
four weeks out of his employment, and failed to reimburse him for
expenses he has incurred while performing duties. As a result, the
Defendants knowingly, willfully, and maliciously failed to pay the
Plaintiff at least the minimum wage. Moreover, the Defendants
failed to provide a wage notice and a wage statement with each
payment of wages.
Starlight Tours Inc. is a charter bus and coach rental company. The
Individual Defendants are part-owners of the Corporate Defendant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
STATE FARM: Santoro Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Melissa Santoro filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated November 9, 2020, and Judgment dated
November 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled MELISSA SANTORO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-9782, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (White Plains).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of New York residents and former residents
seeking compensatory damages arising from the Defendant's charging
of $3 service fees.
In direct violation of New York law, the Defendant charges a $3
fee, which it calls a "Service Charge" or "Installment Fee," in
order for its insurance customers to receive a paper billing
statement and/or pay by United States mail. Indeed, a portion of
the Defendant's website entitled "Lower Installment Fees with
Paperless Billing," states "selecting the paperless option for your
State Farm Payment Plan may result in a reduction of your SFPP
installment fee." The Defendant's conduct is prohibited by New York
General Business Law and, therefore, constitutes a deceptive act
and practice under GBL, says the complaint.
On November 9, 2020, the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant
was granted. The Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claim fails
because: (1) Defendant's installment plan fees are permissible
incentives under the statute; (2) Defendant's notices or statements
for Recurring Accounts are not "billing statement[s]" within the
meaning of the statute; and (3) New York General Business Law
Section 399-zzz is preempted by federal law.
The appellate case is captioned as Santoro v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 20-3870, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, November 13,
2020.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Melissa Santoro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
Defendant-Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
is represented by:
Douglas W. Dunham, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
3 Bryant Park
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 698-3500
E-mail: douglas.dunham@dechert.com
STEEL PARTNERS: Sciabacucchi Class Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class
action settlement in Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., has been
approved.
On December 8, 2017, a stockholder class action, captioned
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of
Handy & Harman Ltd. ("HNH") challenging the Company's acquisition,
through a subsidiary, of all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of HNH not already owned by the Company or any of its
affiliates.
The action named as defendants the former members of the HNH board
of directors, the Company and Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc., and
alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former public stockholders of HNH in
connection with the aforementioned acquisition.
The complaint sought, among other relief, unspecified monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 9, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement of the case,
solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to resolve each of the
plaintiff's claims against the defendant parties.
In the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff class
$30,000, but denied that they engaged in any wrongdoing or
committed any violation of law or breach of duty and stated that
they believe they acted properly, in good faith, and in a manner
consistent with their legal duties. The settlement was approved by
the court on December 2, 2019.
Steel Partners said, "Our insurance carriers agreed to contribute
an aggregate of $17,500 toward the settlement amount. The Company
recorded a charge of $12,500 in Selling, general and administrative
expenses in the consolidated statement of operations for the twelve
months ended December 31, 2019, which consisted of the legal
settlement of $30,000, reduced by the $17,500 of insurance
recoveries. The settlement was paid on December 17, 2019. The
Company made a demand of an aggregate of $10,000 in further
contributions from two insurance carriers, which the carriers
declined, and it is pursuing claims in court to endeavor to recover
this sum, although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of
this litigation."
Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in
industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management,
logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide. It operates
through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services
segments. Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general
partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in New York, New York.
SUNFOOD CORP: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cruz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SUNFOOD CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-09670 (S.D.N.Y, November
17, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate
its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that during his visits to the Website,
www.sunfood.com, the last occurring in November 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied him the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the said conduct, thus seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Sunfood Corporation is a health and nutrition company, and owns and
operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
SUNRUN INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCPA & CIPA Claims in Saunders
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CURTIS SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04548-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California:
(i) awarded costs;
(ii) denied the Defendant's motions to dismiss the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") claims;
(iii) denied its motion to stay pending payment of costs; and
(iv) stayed the CIPA claim pending the California Supreme
Court's review of Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.
On Aug. 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on
behalf of a putative nationwide class, alleging that Sunrun had
sent unauthorized text message advertisements to consumers'
cellular telephones and recorded sales calls without obtaining
proper advance consent.
Sunrun is a national retailer and servicer of residential solar
power systems with its principal place of business located in San
Francisco, California. The Plaintiff submitted an inquiry to
Sunrun attempting to get a quote about its solar products some time
in or prior to October 2018. In October 2018, Sunrun placed a call
to the Plaintiff's cell phone to follow up on his inquiry. During
the call, the Plaintiff informed Sunrun that he did not consent to
receive any text message communications from it. Nevertheless,
shortly thereafter, he received the two automated and generic text
messages from Sunrun.
According to the Plaintiff, these were telemarketing text messages
which Sunrun sent through the use of an automated telephone dialing
system ("ATDS"). He further alleges that Sunrun "automatically
recorded" the phone call from the outset of the call, without first
informing him that the call was being recorded.
The Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: violations of (1) the
TCPA; and (2) the CIPA.
The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of two nationwide classes,
consisting of (1) all persons in the United States and its
Territories who, within the last four years, received one or more
telemarketing text messages from Defendant on their cellular
telephone after communicating to Defendant that it did not have
consent to send text messages to that telephone number; and (2) all
persons in the United States and its Territories who, within one
year prior to the filing of this Complaint, received a phone call
from the Defendant on their cellular telephone regarding the sale
of its products or services and which was recorded without their
consent being obtained at the outset of the call.
On April 2, 2019, Saunders filed an action in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois. Sunrun removed that action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. Sunrun informed the Plaintiff that it intended to file a
motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, but
before it could do so, the Plaintiff "voluntarily dismissed" the
Illinois suit.
Sunrun moves to dismiss Saunders' class action complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in
the alternative to stay the case pending payment of costs pursuant
to Rule 41(d). First, it argues that the Plaintiff fails to state
a claim under the TCPA because his own allegations make clear that
he consented to the text messages.
Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiff's allegations make clear
that the text messages were sent in response to his inquiry and
were sent in fulfillment of the consumer's request. Accordingly,
the Judge agrees with Sunrun that the Plaintiff's allegations make
clear that the text messages did not constitute telemarketing or
advertising.
Because the text messages did not constitute advertising or
telemarketing messages, Sunrun needed only the Plaintiff's express
consent prior to sending the messages. There appears to be no
dispute that Sunrun received such consent because the Plaintiff
voluntarily provided his phone number to follow up on his attempt
to get a quote about the Defendant's solar products and services.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Sunrun did
not have his consent to send the text messages at issue. The
Defendant's motion to the dismiss Plaintiff's TCPA claim will be
denied.
Sunrun argues that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing for his
CIPA claim. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff alleges that his
"privacy rights" were violated and that allegation is sufficient to
confer Article III standing.
Next, Sunrun urges the Court to follow the California Court of
Appeal's recent holding in Smith. In Smith, the court held that
section 632.7 prohibits only third-party eavesdroppers from
intentionally recording telephonic communications involving at
least one cellular or cordless telephone, and does not prohibit the
participants in a phone call from intentionally recording it. The
decision, however, is currently on appeal to the California Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to address whether
that statute allows participants in a phone call to record it or if
it creates a viable cause of action based on the allegations in the
Complaint.
Because issuing a stay of the CIPA claim will result in minimal
harm to the parties and would reduce the waste of judicial
resources, the Judge will stay the proceedings on he Plaintiff's
CIPA claim pending the California Supreme Court's decision in
Smith. Consequently, the Defendant's motion to dismiss will be
denied.
Finally, Defendant argues that the case should be stayed pending
the Plaintiff's payment of costs, including attorney's fees,
pursuant to Rule 41(d). It asks for $18,293.60, representing $700
in filing fees and $17,5293.66 in attorney's fees. The Plaintiff
does not dispute that Defendant is entitled to reimbursement of
costs, but argues that costs do not include attorney's fees.
After consulting with the Defendant's counsel about its impending
motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
Plaintiff dismissed the suit and filed the action where the
Defendant is based. While it may show a lack of diligence on the
Plaintiff's counsel's part, it does not indicate any tactical or
vexatious intentions. Therefore, the Judge will award Sunrun only
the $700 in filing fees. Given the relatively small amount at
stake, the Judge will deny Sunrun's request for a stay on that
basis. Instead, the Plaintiff is ordered pay Sunrun the $700
filing fees.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3gf4jz5 from Leagle.com.
SUNWARRIOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SUNWARRIOR, Case No. 1:20-cv-09669 (S.D.N.Y, November 17, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that during his visits to the Website,
www.sunwarrior.com, the last occurring in November 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied him the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the said conduct, thus seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Sunwarrior is a health and nutrition company, and owns and operates
the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
SVS VISION: Misclassifies Retail Office Managers, Pieber Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA PIEBER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SVS VISION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-13051-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., November 16, 2020) brings this
complaint as a collective action complaint against the Defendant to
recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exempt-classified
retail office manager (ROM) in a SVS retail store in Florissant,
Missouri form approximately September 2016 to February 2018.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant misclassified him and
other similarly situated ROMS as exempt from the FLSA's overtime
pay requirements. Despite regularly working at least 50 hours per
week, they were not paid by the Defendant overtime premium at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any overtime hours
that they worked. Moreover, the Defendant failed to record all of
the time that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated ROMS
worked.
SVS Vision, Inc. operates retail stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER,
BONANNI & RIVERS, P.C.
117 West 4th Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Tel: (248) 939-5081
E-mail: mbonnani@pittlawpc.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Camar R. Jones, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of investors that purchased Tactile Systems
Technology, Inc. Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD)
Class Period: May 7, 2018 to June 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020
Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Tactile is a medical
technology company that develops and provides medical devices for
the at home treatment of lymphedema and venous insufficiency. A
material portion of Tactile's annual revenues come in the form of
reimbursement from public third party payers, such as Medicare, the
Veteran's Administration and certain Medicaid programs in the
United States. Accordingly, Tactile's compliance with applicable
federal and state rules and public payer regulations is critical to
the Company's success.
The complaint, filed on September 29, 2020, alleges that defendants
violated the securities laws by misrepresenting and concealing
that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5
plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable
market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to
induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its employees
were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities
in violation of applicable federal and state rules and public payer
regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and
marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of
Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile's
revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5)
defendants' public statements, including its year-over-year revenue
growth and the purported growth drivers, were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
The truth began to emerge on March 20, 2019, when an amended
federal Qui Tam complaint filed against Tactile by one of the
Company's competitors was unsealed, which contained detailed
allegations of illegal sales practices on the part of Tactile,
causing the Company to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare and the
VA.
On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $4.53 per share over
the next two trading days, or 7.5%, from a close price of $60.10
per share on March 20, 2019 to a close price of $55.57 on March 22,
2019.
Then, on February 21, 2020, the court issued an order in the Qui
Tam action, denying Tactile's motion to dismiss in its entirety.
On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $6.65 per share, or
10.59%, to close at $56.09 on February 24, 2020.
Finally, on June 8, 2020, research firm OSS Research published a
scathing report about the Company, accusing Tactile of using a
"'daisy-chaining' kickback scheme that has resulted in rampant
overprescribing and rapid market share gains at the expense of
patients, insurers and the public."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $6.05, or 11.69%, from
its June 8, 2020 opening price of $51.72 per share to a June 9,
2020 close of $45.67.
For more information on the Tactile class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TCMD
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov 30 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tactile Systems Technology, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TCMD) between May 7, 2018 and June 8, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 30, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Tactile investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Tactile class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1872.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5
plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable
market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to
induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile engaged in illegal
sales and marketing activities; (3) Tactile's revenues were in part
the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as
a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1872.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Schall Law Reminds Nov. 30 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Tactile
Systems Technology, Inc. ("Tactile" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:TCMD)
for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 7,
2018 and June 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 30, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/tactile-systems-technology-inc-2/#case-form
to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tactile publicly touted a market
potential of at least $4 billion for its medical devices while
knowing the actual market potential was far lower. The Company
engaged in illegal marketing schemes to boost sales growth. This
scheme put the Company at risk of a Medicare audit. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Tactile, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com
[GN]
TASTY CAFE: Resto Staff Slams Tip Credit, Denied Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Choque, Jassel Antonio Romero Perez, Luis Miguel, Cruz
Medina, Miguel Angel Lema, Rosa Cando, Abinadi Carretero, Bernardo
Vasquez, Juan Gonzalez Reyes, Manuel Gonzalez, Pedro Say and Jose
Manuel Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 367 Bake Corp., 64 Bake Corp., 126 Bake
Corp., 128 Bake Corp., 307 Bake Corp., 958 Bake Corp., 2062 Bake
Corp. and Kamal Khadr, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08315, (S.D. N.Y.
October 6, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to
time-shaving, unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, unpaid spread
of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants collectively own and operate a group of stores under the
trade names "Tasty Cafe" and "Gigi Cafe" in New York State where
Plaintiffs worked as servers, bussers, runners, dishwashers, cooks,
food preparers, hosts, bartenders and barbacks. They claim to have
generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for
hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours
premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Defendants claimed tip
credit for all hours worked despite requiring Plaintiffs to work
non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked
each workweek. They also claim to have never received wage
statements. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
TOM & TOON: Tangtiwatanapaibul Appeals FLSA Suit Order to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Srisuwan Tangtiwatanapaibul, et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order of Dismissal dated October 13,
2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Srisuwan Tangtiwatanapaibul,
also known as: Anne Tangtiwatanapaibul, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated; and Phouviengsone Sysouvong also known
as: Tukta, Phouviengsone, the Plaintiffs, v. Tom & Toon Inc., doing
business as Broadway Thai; Thai Sliders & Co. LLC, doing business
as Thai Slider; Toon Thai Inc., doing business as Noodle Den; Silom
Thai Inc., doing business as: Silom Thai; Thai Toon At Grand
Central, Inc., doing business as Thai Toon; Wai Ying Lau; Toon Lau;
and Peter Fong Chiu, Case No. 17-cv-816, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, Plaintiff Phouviengsone
Sysouvong, among others, is suing Defendant Roongkant
Preechatammarach ("Toon") for wage and labor violations that
occurred while she was a cook for Tom & Toon, Inc. Sysouvong was
employed at Tom & Toon, Inc. from approximately June 5, 2012, to
September 4, 2014. Sysouvong currently lives in Laos, and Toon
lives in the United States.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendant Toon engaged in an intimidation
campaign against Plaintiff Sysouvong to prevent Sysouvong's
involvement in this litigation. Sysouvong alleges that Toon bribed
the Laotian police department to send a letter to Sysouvong to
summon her to the police station and interrogate her to force
Sysouvong to "surrender" to Toon. While Sysouvong was at the police
station on March 12, 2018, the police called "Toon's
representative,” who informed Sysouvong over the phone that Toon
wanted to speak to Sysouvong privately about the case. After
Sysouvong informed the representative that she needed to think
about whether to meet Toon privately, the representative told
Sysouvong not to tell her family or attorneys in the United States
anything about the call or meeting with the police. Sysouvong
claims that as a result, she did not contact her attorney or
family. After the March 12, 2018, meeting at the police station,
the police called Sysouvong on March 13, 14 and 15. During these
calls, the police told Sysouvong to stop communicating with her
family and lawyer between March and June 2018.
The appellate case is captioned as Tangtiwatanapaibul v. Tom & Toon
Inc., Case No. 20-3852, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Srisuwan Tangtiwatanapaibul, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, AKA Anne
Tangtiwatanapaibul; Phouviengkhone Thammavong, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated; Phouviengsone Sysouvong,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Tukta
Phouviengsone; and Manoon Charussilapa, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, AKA Charlie Charussilapa, are
represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-2332
E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com
Defendants-Appellees Tom & Toon Inc, DBA Broadway Thai; Thai
Sliders & Co. LLC, DBA Thai Sliders; Toon Thai Inc, DBA Noodle Den;
Silom Thai Inc, DBA Silom Thai; Thai Toon At Grand Central, Inc.,
DBA Thai Toon; Wai Ying Lau; and Roongkant Preechatammarach, AKA
Toon Lau, are represented by:
Morton S. Minsley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MORTON S. MINSLEY
101 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 346-0849
E-mail: minsleylaw@me.com
TOTAL LIFE: Raspberry Tea Packaging Deceptive, Williams Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Total Life Changes, LLC, Case No.
27-CV-20-14517 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., November 10, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of misrepresenting
the true ingredients of their Raspberry Lemonade Instant Tea in
violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota
Unlawful Trade Practice Act, and the Minnesota False Statements in
Advertising Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant represented (and
continues to represent) through product packaging, product
literature, its retail Website, and statements by its
representatives, that the Raspberry Lemonade Instant Tea does not
contain Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) when in fact the product does
contain THC.
THC is "the primary psychoactive component in marijuana, hashish,
and other preparations derived from cannabis plants."
The Plaintiff saw, read, and relied on the Defendant's
representations regarding the Raspberry Lemonade Instant Tea's THC
levels, and ultimately decided to purchase the Tea. After
purchasing and consuming the tea, the Plaintiff failed her employer
drug test and was terminated after the test came back positive for
THC. The representations that its Raspberry Lemonade Instant Tea
does not contain THC are false, she added.
Total Life Changes, LLC offers health, wellness, and beauty
products. The Company offers soap, hair oil, solution kits, gym
bag, eye drops, body cream, and other personal care products. TLC
serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Chloe Raimey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: morgan@nka.com
craimey@nka.com
- and -
David Fish, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfinn.com
- and -
Aaron Rapier, Esq.
RAPIER LAW FIRM
1770 Park St., Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (815) 782-5478
Facsimile: (815) 327-3449
E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com
TOTAL SYSTEM: Brown Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIKA L. BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation and GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., a Georgia
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04685-ELR (N.D. Ga.,
November 17, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged intentional,
willful, and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
paid employee at a TSYS call center in McDonough, Georgia from
approximately August 2018 to April 2019.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
him and other similarly situated employees overtime wages at the
applicable overtime rate required by the FLSA for all of the hours
that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Additionally, the
Defendant failed to record all of the time that the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees have worked.
Total System Services, Inc. operates a call center that provides
payment processing services, merchant services and related payment
services. Global Payments, Inc. is the parent organization of
Defendant TSYS. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Tel: (404) 781-1100
Fax: (404) 781-1101
E-mail: rberlin@buckleybeal.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
TRANSITIONAL SERVICES: Judicial Intervention Sought in David Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case docketed as Stefan David, Michael Lawrence, George
Akosa and Debra Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Transitional Services for New
York, Inc., Melinda Pantone, Larry S. Grubler, Joanne Mazzo, Maira
E. Polo and Pamela Wallace, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
711603/2020, (N.Y. Sup., July 29, 2020), Plaintiffs file a Request
for Judicial Intervention on September 29, 2020.
David, Lawrence, Akosa and Hamilton worked for Transitional
Services as counselors. They seek to recover damages for violations
of state wage and overtime laws. They claim to be denied meal
breaks and being underpaid on their hours rendered. Parties were
scheduled to appear before the court last November 11, 2020. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
TRIHEALTH INC: Shortchanges Nurses' Wages, Fyffe Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Fyffe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trihealth, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00783 (S.D. Ohio, October 1, 2020), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.
TriHealth is a unified health care system operating seven hospitals
and dozens of primary care centers across the state of Ohio. Fyffe
has been employed by TriHealth in Cincinnati, Ohio as a nurse since
2018. Fyffe claims to be denied overtime for all hours worked in
excess of forty hours per workweek. He claims that TriHealth
employs a time clock that rounds down payable time to the nearest
fifteen-minute increment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON2X, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Turquoise Hill. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines
listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can
be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
TRQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 17, 2018 -
July 31, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10409&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
progress of underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not
proceeding as planned; (ii) there were significant undisclosed
underground stability issues that called into question the design
of the mine, the projected cost and timing of production; (iii) the
company's publicly disclosed estimates of the cost, date of
completion and dates for production from the underground mine were
not achievable; (iv) the development capital required for the
underground development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost substantially more
than a billion dollars over what the company had represented; and
(v) Turquoise Hill would require additional financing and/or equity
to complete the project.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
TURQUOISE HILL: Portnoy Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Turquoise Hill Resources, Ltd.
("Turquoise" or "the Company") (NYSE: TRQ) investors that acquired
securities July 17, 2018 and July 31, 2019.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
Turquoise announced in a press release on February 26, 2019 that,
while "the [Oyu Tolgoi] project cost was expected to remain within
the $5.3 billion budget," a review had determined that "there was
an increasingly likely risk of a further delay to sustainable first
production beyond Q3'21." Turquoise Hill attributed the "likely
risk" to productivity setbacks in completing Shaft 2 and
"challenging ground conditions that have had a direct impact on the
project's critical path."
Turquoise's share price fell $0.27, or approximately 13%, on this
news, to close at $1.83 per share on February 27, 2019, which
injured investors.
Then, Turquoise Hill announced on July 15, 2019 that sustainable
first production from the underground development of Oyu Tolgoi
would henceforth be delayed by another 9 to 21 months until May
2022 to June 2023. Turquoise also stated that "the development
capital spend for the project may increase by $1.2 to $1.9 billion
over the $5.3 billion previously disclosed."
Turquoise's share price fell $0.47, or 44%, on this news, to close
at $0.60 per share on July 16, 2019, which injured investors
further.
Then, after the market closed on July 31, 2019, Turquoise disclosed
that it had taken a $600 million impairment charge and a
significant "deferred income tax recognition adjustment", which was
tied to the Oyu Tolgoi project, and that it had suffered a loss in
the second quarter of 2019.
Turquoise's share price fell $0.05, or over 8%, on this news, to
close at $0.53 per share on August 1, 2019, which injured investors
further.
It is alleged in the complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Turquoise made statements that were materially misleading and/or
false, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Turquoise's operations, business, and prospects. Specifically,
Turquoise failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the progress of
underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not proceeding as
planned; (2) that there were significant undisclosed underground
stability problems that called into question the projected cost and
timing of production and the design of the mine; (3) Turquoise
publicly released estimates of the date of completion, cost, and
dates for production from the underground mine were not realizable;
(4) the development capital that was required for the Oyu Tolgoi
underground development would cost significantly more than a
billion dollars in excess of what Turquoise had represented; (5)
Further financing and/or equity would be required for Turquoise to
complete the project; and (6), Turquoise's positive statements
about their business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as a result of the
foregoing. [GN]
UBER: Drivers Sue Company Alleging Coercive Prop 22 Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
techcrunch.com reports that Uber is facing a class-action lawsuit
over Proposition 22 that alleges the company is illegally coercing
its drivers to support the ballot measure that seeks to keep
workers classified as independent contractors. The suit was brought
forth by two Uber drivers, Benjamin Valdez and Hector Castellanos,
as well as two California nonprofit organizations, Worksafe and
Chinese Progressive Association.
"Let's be absolutely clear," David Lowe, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, said in a statement. "Uber's threats and constant
barrage of Prop 22 propaganda on an app the drivers must use to do
their work have one purpose: to coerce the drivers to support
Uber's political battle to strip them of workplace protections."
Update 10/28: A judge has denied the plaintiffs' request for a
temporary restraining order, saying the suit doesn't prove any Uber
drivers have been punished for not cooperating with Prop 22 and
that the request for the injunction is belated.
In the suit, provided by The New York Times reporter Kate Conger,
the plaintiffs argue Uber has encouraged its drivers and delivery
workers to support Prop 22 via the company's driver-scheduling
app.
"Uber's solicitations have the purpose and effect of causing
drivers to fear retaliation by Uber if they do not support Uber's
political preference and may induce many drivers to falsely state
that they support being deprived of the rights that California law
guarantees to statutory 'employees,' " the suit states.
This group says it also plans to file legal claims against Uber,
Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash with the California Labor
Commissioner.
"This is an absurd lawsuit, without merit, filed solely for press
attention and without regard for the facts," Uber spokesperson Matt
Kallman said in a statement to TechCrunch. "It can't distract from
the truth: that the vast majority of drivers support Prop 22, and
have for months, because they know it will improve their lives and
protect the way they prefer to work."
Prop 22 is the most-funded campaign in California's history. To
date, the Yes on 22 side has put north of $185 million into the
initiative. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash are the biggest contributors
on the yes side. Meanwhile, the No on 22 campaign has contributed
$12,166,063. [GN]
UNITED AIRLINES: Moss Appeals Ruling in Employment Suit to 7th Cir
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Moss filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in his lawsuit entitled Michael Moss, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Airlines, Inc.,
United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc.,
Continental Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08496, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Michael Moss
alleges that pilots for the Defendants were deprived of sick time
accrual, vacation time accrual, and pension payments, during
military leave in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA").
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Moss v. UAL, et al.,
Case No. 20-3246, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL MOSS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
PILOT LAW, P.C.
850 Beech Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 255-2398
E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com
Defendants-Appellees UNITED AIRLINES, INC., UNITED CONTINENTAL
HOLDINGS, INC., and CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. are represented by:
Aparna B. Joshi, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-4001
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
E-mail: ajoshi@omm.com
UNITED STATES: Aldred Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Val Anthony Aldred, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled VAL ANTHONY ALDRED, HAGAN
HAMILTON HEILIGBRODT, WILLIAM LANGE KRELL, JR., BEVERLY FECEL
KRELL, AND SHAWN S. WELLING, appearing individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED
STATES, Case No. 1:17-cv-01206-LAS, in the United States Court of
Federal Claims.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendant to seek just compensation for the taking of the
Plaintiffs' and Class' private property for public use when the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flooded their homes by releasing water
from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs in Houston, Texas.
The appellate case is captioned as Aldred v. United States, Case
No. 21-1223, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The briefing schedule of the appellate case is set as follows:
-- Entry of Appearance is due on November 30, 2020;
-- Certificate of Interest is due on November 30, 2020;
-- Docketing Statement is due on December 14, 2020; and
-- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on January 12, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants VAL ANTHONY ALDRED, HAGAN HAMILTON
HEILIGBRODT, WILLIAM LANGE KRELL, JR., BEVERLY FECEL KRELL, and
SHAWN S. WELLING, appearing individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, are represented by:
Derek Heath Potts, Esq.
POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 963-8881
E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
PO Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
E-mail: c-natcourts.appeals@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Chowdhury Appeals Ruling in Rojas Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claimant Enamul Haqe Chowdhury filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit Concely del Carmen MENDEZ ROJAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Chad F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security,
in his official capacity; et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01024-RSM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, who are refugees from Central and South America and the
Caribbean, filed their due-process class action in 2016. They claim
immigration agents never told them they had to file for asylum
within one year after they entered the United States, and did not
present the asylum-seekers with a viable path for meeting that
deadline.
The appellate case is captioned as Concely Mendez Rojas, et al v.
Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-35988, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 16, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Enamul Haqe Chowdhury opening brief is due on
January 4, 2021;
-- Appellees William P. Barr, Attorney General, Tae Johnson,
Lidia Margarita Lopez Orellana, James McHenry, Concely Del Carmen
Mendez Rojas, Mark A. Morgan, Tony H. Pham, Elmer Geovanni
Rodriguez Escobar, Maribel Suarez Garcia and Chad F. Wolf answering
brief is due on February 3, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees CONCELY DEL CARMEN MENDEZ ROJAS; ELMER
GEOVANNI RODRIGUEZ ESCOBAR; LIDIA MARGARITA LOPEZ ORELLANA; and
MARIBEL SUAREZ GARCIA, on behalf of themselves as individuals and
on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
- and -
Vicky Dobrin, Esq.
Hilary Han, Esq.
DOBRIN & HAN, PC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 905
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 448-3440
E-mail: vicky@dobrin-han.com
hilary@dobrin-han.com
- and -
Mary A. Kenney, Esq.
Trina A. Realmuto, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE
10 Griggs Terrace
Brookline, MA 02446
Telephone: (617) 819-4681
E-mail: mkenney@immcouncil.org
trealmuto@immcouncil.org
- and -
Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq.
Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
1331 "G" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (857) 305-3722
E-mail: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org
kwalters@immcouncil.org
Claimant-Appellant ENAMUL HAQE CHOWDHURY of Dhaka, Bangladesh,
appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary of Department
of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; WILLIAM P. BARR,
Attorney General; TAE JOHNSON, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in
his official capacity; TONY H. PHAM, Acting Director of United
States Customs and Immigration Services, in his official capacity;
MARK A. MORGAN, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity; and JAMES MCHENRY, Director
of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, in his official
capacity, are represented by:
Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esq.
J. Max Weintraub, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-7181
E-mail: Gladys.Steffens-Guzman@usdoj.gov
jacob.weintraub@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Kearney Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James K. Kearney and Kina Kearney filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled James K. Kearney and
Kina Kearney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Case No. 1:17-cv-01653-LAS,
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendant to seek just compensation for the taking of the
Plaintiffs' and Class' private property for public use when the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flooded their homes by releasing water
from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs in Houston, Texas.
The appellate case is captioned as Kearney v. United States, Case
No. 21-1220, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The briefing schedule of the appellate case is set as follows:
-- Entry of Appearance is due on November 30, 2020;
-- Certificate of Interest is due on November 30, 2020;
-- Docketing Statement is due on December 14, 2020; and
-- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on January 12, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES K. KEARNEY and KINA KEARNEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Tammy Tran, Esq.
TAMMY TRAN LAW FIRM
2915 Fannin
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 655-0737
E-mail: ttran@tt-lawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
PO Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
E-mail: c-natcourts.appeals@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Y and J Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Y and J Properties, Ltd. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Y and J Properties, Ltd.
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01189-LAS, in the
United States Court of Federal Claims.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendant to seek just compensation for the taking of the
Plaintiffs' and Class' private property for public use when the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flooded their homes by releasing water
from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs in Houston, Texas.
The appellate case is captioned as Y and J Properties, Ltd. v.
United States, Case No. 21-1286, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, November 23, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Entry of Appearance is due on December 7, 2020;
-- Certificate of Interest is due on December 7, 2020;
-- Docketing Statement is due on December 23, 2020; and
-- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on January 22, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Y AND J PROPERTIES, LTD., individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Rand Patrick Nolen, Esq.
FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP
2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 621-7944
E-mail: rand_nolen@fleming-law.com
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Chandler Seeks Fee Refund Due to Strikes
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CHANDLER, individually, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2020-01169261-CU-BC-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., November 9, 2020) is a putative class action brought
on behalf of all persons who paid tuition, room and board, campus,
administrative, and/or service fees for the Fall 2019 or Winter
2020 academic quarters for undergraduate attendance at the
University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC), but who were denied
full enjoyment of such services as a result of the Defendants'
response, or lack thereof, to disruptive strike activity.
According to the complaint, UCSC experienced growing waves of
marches, rallies, and "wildcat" strikes from approximately 700
graduate student teaching assistants (TAs) disgruntled by their low
working wages. A wildcat strike is a work stoppage that occurs
during the term of a collective bargaining agreement without the
approval of union leadership -- here, United Auto Workers Local
2865 -- and in violation of a no-strike clause. As a result,
undergraduate students found themselves caught up and victims of
interrupted classes (including during midterm and final exams) and
grade strikes whereby TAs withheld, modified, and untimely reported
student grades.
The complaint asserts the Regents breached its promises, duties,
and contracts with the Plaintiff and putative class members
regarding the provision of educational, campus, and residential
services, and notwithstanding repeated requests by the Plaintiff
and putative class members. The Regents denied refunds,
reimbursements, compensatory damages, and/or restitution for those
economic losses sustained as a result of its failure to perform.
Thus, the Plaintiff and putative class members suffered an injury
in fact resulting in the loss of money and/or property.
As a result of The Regents' inept response to the strike activity,
the Plaintiff and putative class members experienced diminished
educational instruction, lost academic and scholastic
opportunities, and suffered attendant tangible economic losses. In
terms of intangible losses, is impossible for the Plaintiff and
other undergraduate students who attended UCSC during the Fall 2019
or Winter 2020 academic quarters to unwind the clock and get their
school days back. The Plaintiff and putative class members were
wrongfully deprived of a significant portion of their collegiate
experience and proportionate economic redress is now due, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Orange County, California and parent
of undergraduate student, Jacob Chandler, who at all time during
the relevant time period was and is enrolled at the University of
California at the UC Santa Cruz campus.
The Regents of the University of California is a public trust
corporation established under the Constitution of the State of
California, Article 9, Section 9. The Regents has full powers over
the organization, administration, rule-making and policy-making in
the University of California system, including the establishment of
the fees to be charged at its constituent institutions, including
the University of California Santa Cruz.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
COUNSELONE, P.C.
9301 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 650
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 277-9945
Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
jennifer@counselonegroup.com
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Russo Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH RUSSO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Defendant, Case No.
N20C-11-164 PRW CCLD (Del. Super., Nov. 18, 2020) is a class action
arising from the Defendant's decision not to issue appropriate
refunds for the Spring 2020 term after canceling in-person classes
and changing all classes to an online/remote format, closing most
campus buildings, and requiring all students who could leave campus
to do so as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease
("COVID-19").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant refused
to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that
Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Classes for their loss.
University of Delaware provides educational services. The Company
offers undergraduate and graduate education, research, academics,
athletics, and other related educational services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
Michael L. Vild, Esq.
CROSS & SIMON, LLC
1105 N. Market Street, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801-1380
Telephone: (302) 777-4200
E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com
mvild@crosslaw.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
URS MIDWEST: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. URS
MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS1909752, was removed from the California Superior Court for
the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on November 10, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SP to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under California law for (1) unpaid
minimum wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; (4) non-compliant wage
statements and failure to maintain payroll records; (5) wages not
timely paid upon termination; (6) unreimbursed business expenses;
(7) civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA); (8) unlawful business practices, and (9) unfair
business practices.
URS Midwest, Inc. was founded in 1998. The Company's line of
business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and
cargo.
United Road Services, Inc. provides vehicle transportation
logistics solutions. The Company offers auto transport, car
shipping, enclosing, finished vehicle logistics, remarketing, and
door-to-door delivery services. United Road Services serves clients
in the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy M. Fisher, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT,
HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: tfisher@scopelitis.com
- and -
Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT,
HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46214
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
V R V COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY NELSON v. V R V COMPANY INC. dba OUR PLACE; ROGELIO MENDOZA;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV42959 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 9, 2020) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees arising
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff says the Defendants failed to:
-- pay for all hours worked and minimum and overtime wages,
-- provide accurate itemized wage statements,
-- pay wages owed every pay period,
-- maintain accurate records,
-- give rest and meal breaks, and
-- pay wages when employment ends
The Defendants also allegedly conducted unfair and unlawful
business practices.
The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants' Our Place bar on
or around January 20, 2019 until March 17, 2020 as a bartender.
V R V owns and operates and does business as Our Place, which is a
bar, located in Glendora, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
VERISK ANALYTICS: Peterson Class Action Against ISO Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a class action suit
has been filed against Insurance Services Office Inc. ("ISO"), the
Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and
its members, and the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance
Services Office Inc. and its members, by former employees Jillyn
Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski.
On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare,
Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski, filed suit in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF)
against Defendants ISO, the Plan Administration Committee of
Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members, and the Trust
Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its
members.
The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA.
The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014 through the
date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all Defendants are
fiduciaries with respect to the Plan.
Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants
to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the
amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants. Plaintiffs
allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees, the
Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence and
loyalty.
Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by
failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege
committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary
breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars.
Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
estimate the liability related to this matter."
Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the
United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics
and decision-support solutions to customers in rating,
underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural
resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other
fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance,
Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company
was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New
Jersey.
VIACOMCBS INC: Lovoi Challenges Amendment on Removal of Directors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD LOVOI, Plaintiff v. VIACOMCBS INC., SHARI E. REDSTONE,
ROBERT M. BAKISH, CANDACE K. BEINECKE, BARBARA M. BYRNE, BRIAN
GOLDNER, LINDA M. GRIEGO, ROBERT N. KLIEGER, JUDITH A. MCHALE,
RONALD L. NELSON, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR., SUSAN SCHUMAN, NICOLE
SELIGMAN, and FREDERICK O. TERRELL, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0987
(Del. Ch. Ct., November 16, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violation of
Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) Section 141(k) and Delaware
common law, in connection with the merger of Viacom Inc. and CBS
Corporation.
The Plaintiff owns ViacomCBS' common stock since the merger.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated ViacomCBS stockholders to challenge the
Defendants' amendment and restatement of Section 6 of Article of
the Removal Provision of the Bylaws, which states that any director
may be removed from office by the affirmative vote of a majority of
the board of directors, at any time prior to the expiration of his
or her term of office. The DGCL does not provide for the removal of
directors by the board or directors. This right is exclusive to the
stockholders.
ViacomCBS Inc. is a producer and provider of premium entertainment
content that connects billions of people in nearly every country in
the world. The Individual Defendants are directors of the Corporate
Defendant. Shari E. Redstone has served as its Non-Executive Chair
of the Board as of the Effective Time. Robert M. Bakish serves as
President and Chief Executive Officer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 984-3800
Fax: (302) 984-3939
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and –
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Tel: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
VIRTUSA CORP: Facing Austin HoldCo Merger Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Virtusa Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing multiple putative class action suits related to its merger
with Austin HoldCo Inc.
On September 9, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, with Austin HoldCo Inc., an entity wholly-owned by
funds affiliated with Baring Private Equity Asia, and Austin BidCo
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, with respect to the
acquisition of the Company by Parent for $51.35 in cash for each
share of Virtusa common stock.
Since the announcement of the merger, putative class actions have
been filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware in connection with the proposed merger against the company
and the members of its board of directors.
The lawsuits allege that the preliminary that the proxy statement
violates Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934 by materially omitting material information related to the
Company's projections and the explanation of the analysis of the
Company's financial advisor, among other claims.
Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to
enjoin the merger.
Virtusa said, "This and other potential legal proceedings could
delay or prevent the merger from becoming effective."
Virtusa Corporation is a global provider of digital business
strategy, digital engineering and information technology services
and solutions that help clients change, disrupt, and unlock new
value through innovation engineering. The company is based in
Southborough, Massachusetts.
WALL & ASSOCIATES: Vandermast Appeals W.D.N.Y Judgment to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeffrey Vandermast and Bridget Vandermast filed an
appeal from the District Court's Decision and Order dated October
20, 2020 and Judgment dated October 22, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled JEFFREY VANDERMAST, and BRIDGET VANDERMAST,
individually and as Husband and Wife, on behalf of themselves and
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALL & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-736, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York (Buffalo).
On April 25, 2019, Plaintiffs Jeffrey Vandermast and Bridget
Vandermast commenced the instant action against Defendant Wall &
Associates, Inc. in state court, alleging causes of action for
fraud, money had and received, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
On May 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
class allegations and a cause of action for deceptive acts and
practices in violation of New York State General Business Law
Section 349. Based on the amended complaint, Wall removed this
action to this court on June 16, 2020, and filed a motion to
dismiss based on a forum selection clause on July 14, 2020. On June
24, 2020, the court referred the case to United States Magistrate
Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Presently before the court is Judge
McCarthy's report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the
court grant Wall's motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Vandermast v. Wall & Associates,
Inc., Case No. 20-3831, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Jeffrey Vandermast and Bridget Vandermast, on
behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, are
represented by:
Edward P. Yankelunas, Esq.
HOGANWILLIG PLLC
2410 North Forest Road
Amherst, NY 14068
Telephone: (716) 636-7600
E-mail: eyankelunas@hoganwillig.com
Defendant-Appellee Wall & Associates, Inc. is represented by:
Paul Joyce, Esq.
COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C.
2000 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-4080
E-mail: pjoyce@colucci-gallaher.com
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Hammett Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Music Group
Corp. The case is captioned as Courtney Hammett, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Warner Music Group
Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-09261-PGG (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged damage to personal property.
The case is assigned to Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
Warner Music Group Corp. is an American multinational entertainment
and record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Peterson, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
90 Broad Street, Suite 1011
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 564-4568
E-mail: apeterson@forthepeople.com
WATER GREMLIN: White Bear Homeowner Brings Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
patch.com reports that a homeowner in White Bear Township is suing
a manufacturing plant, alleging property damage.
Water Gremlin has been at the center of controversy since early
2019, when it entered into a settlement with the state of Minnesota
after more than a decade of pollution came to light. Some living
near the plant say the company should compensate the community.
The manufacturing plant is surrounded by homes, one of which
belongs to Rob Sharot. [GN]
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Seeks to Vacate Award in Herrington Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company has
moved to vacate an award entered in the class action suit entitled,
Herrington et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation.
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.
The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.
On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.
On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in
large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount
of $7.3 milllion in damages to Claimants, $3.3 million in attorney
fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff
Herrington.
Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling
in October 2018 vacating the District Court's order enforcing the
arbitration award, and remanded the case to the District Court.
On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that the Plaintiff's
claims must be resolved through single-plaintiff arbitration. As a
result, it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its
entirety, and issued a revised judgment in Waterstone's favor.
In May 2019, Herrington re-initiated her individual arbitration.
The arbitrator issued a written award on February 18, 2020 in which
he found Waterstone liable for damages, based on an assumed
workweek of 50 hours and $100 in unreimbursed expenses per
workweek, awarding Herrington $14,952 in damages on her claims.
Herrington has since sought $4.9 million in fees and costs on her
award, which includes fees dating back to 2011 and the vacated
proceeding. On May 6, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award that
would allow Herrington to recover $1.1 million in attorney fees and
costs.
Herrington has moved to confirm the award and Waterstone has
subsequently moved to vacate the award in court.
Waterstone said, "If the award is confirmed, Waterstone retains its
appellate rights to challenge the award before the Seventh Circuit.
Waterstone believes that it has meaningful avenues to vacate the
award. However, given the details of these recent developments,
Waterstone does believe that it has met the criteria with respect
to recognizing a loss contingency under GAAP. As such, the Company
recorded a loss reserve with respect to this matter for
approximately $1.1 million during the three months ended March 31,
2020."
Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.
WAYNE COUNTY: Foreclosures Spark Federal Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hicks at The Detroit News reports that Wayne County officials
are facing a federal class-action lawsuit amid claims the county
sold foreclosed homes at unfairly low prices and pocketed all of
the proceeds instead of distributing some of the earnings to the
owners.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tonya
Bowles, who lost her Detroit home to foreclosure in 2017.
Although the property on East State Fair had a fair market value of
$36,600, Wayne County Treasurer Eric Sabree's office sold it at a
tax auction for $14,000, according to the document, and retainined
the proceeds above the tax delinquency and administrative fees for
the county.
"Defendants have taken plaintiffs' and the class members' property
interests in the form of equity — that is the value of their
properties to the extent they exceed the properties' tax
delinquencies — and have appropriated this property for public
use without the payment of just compensation in violation of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,"
the filing stated.
"The defendants seized plaintiff's equity in the East State Fair
property by foreclosing upon said property, selling it at auction
for an amount much lower than its fair market value, but still far
more than the tax delinquency, and failing to return any of the
equity to her," Bowles' attorneys said.
The suit alleges that while Michigan law allows counties to
foreclose on parcels to satisfy outstanding unpaid property taxes,
Wayne County and its officials "abuse this process" by selling
properties at reduced amounts, pocketing the proceeds and keeping
the equity while the owners "lose the entire value" of their
properties.
Bowles' lawyers argue Sabree "refuses to pay just compensation,
failed to initiate any form of condemnation proceedings, or has
failed to have or undertake a process to return the surplus
equity."
Representatives for Sabree did not immediately respond to requests
seeking comment.
The county commission is also named in the suit. Jim Toth, a
spokesman, told The Detroit News in an email: "The Wayne County
Commission does not comment on pending lawsuits."
The lawsuit seeks an order awarding damages and "declaring the
conduct of defendants as being unconstitutional under the federal
and state constitutions, even if being undertaken consistent with
the General Property Tax Act."
It follows the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruling in July
that counties cannot sell tax-foreclosed property at a profit
without compensating the individual from whom the property was
taken. Counties that retain profit over the amount of tax owed
without compensating the previous property owner participate in an
"unconstitutional taking," according to the opinion.
A coalition of community activists called on Sabree to pursue a
continued ban of "inhumane" countywide property tax foreclosures in
2021 and beyond amid financial hardships spurred by COVID-19.
A Detroit News investigation published in January found Detroit
overtaxed homeowners by least $600 million between 2010 and 2016
after officials failed to accurately assess properties to keep pace
with falling property values during the Great Recession.
City officials told The News Detroit's efforts have successfully
cut owner-occupied foreclosures by 95% from more than 6,400 in 2015
to 357 in 2020. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Interchange Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal made by
the settlement objector merchants in the Interchange Litigation is
still pending.
Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding
the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions.
Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bank holding
companies are also named as defendants in these actions.
These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The amended and
consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive.
Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.
On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.
The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the
consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately
$6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants
opting out of the settlement.
The class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.
The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants.
Other merchants opted out of the settlement and are pursuing
several individual actions. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit
vacated the settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the
consolidated action to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for further proceedings.
On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the
United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the
settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the
petition on March 27, 2017.
On November 30, 2016, the district court-appointed lead class
counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. The
parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately
$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900
million in additional funding.
The Company's allocated responsibility for the additional funding
is approximately $94.5 million.
The court granted final approval of the settlement on December 13,
2019, which was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Several of the
opt-out and direct action litigations have been settled while
others remain pending.
Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the
equitable relief class case.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Order of Suit Dismissal Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal in the order of posting related suit is
pending.
Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.
Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative
plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the
claims of unnamed class members.
The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in October 2016,
and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and
found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
On September 26, 2019, the district court entered an order granting
Wells Fargo's motion and dismissed the claims of unnamed class
members in favor of arbitration.
Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Defends Putative Class Actions Over PPP Loan
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to the
Company's offering of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
Plaintiffs have filed putative class actions in various federal
courts against the Company.
The actions seek damages and injunctive relief related to the
Company's offering of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, as well as
claims for fees by purported agents who allegedly assisted
customers with preparing PPP loan applications submitted to the
Company.
The Company has also received formal and informal inquiries from
federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of
PPP loans.
In addition, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought a securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Company and
certain of its executive officers made false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's participation in the PPP and the
Company's compliance with related regulations.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Dismissal of 401(k) Plan Related Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in
the purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan participants.
A number of lawsuits have been filed by non-governmental parties
seeking damages or other remedies related to retail sales
practices.
First, various class plaintiffs, purporting to represent consumers
who allege that they received products or services without their
authorization or consent, have brought separate putative class
actions against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California and various other
jurisdictions.
On June 14, 2018, the district court granted final approval of a
settlement entered into by the Company in the first-filed action,
Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., pursuant to which the Company
will pay $142 million to resolve claims regarding certain products
or services provided without authorization or consent for the time
period May 1, 2002 to April 20, 2017.
On July 20, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting final approval
of the settlement.
On September 29, 2020, the district court approved the settlement
distribution to the Jabbari claimants.
Second, the Company was subject to a consolidated securities fraud
class action alleging certain misstatements and omissions in the
Company's disclosures related to sales practices matters.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this
matter pursuant to which the Company paid $480 million.
Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder
derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
against, among others, current and former directors and officers
for their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and
prevent sales practices issues. These actions are currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and California state court as consolidated or
coordinated proceedings.
The parties have entered into settlement agreements to resolve the
shareholder derivative lawsuits pursuant to which insurance
carriers will pay the Company approximately $240 million for
alleged damage to the Company, and the Company will pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.
The federal court granted final approval of the settlement for its
action on April 7, 2020. The state court granted final approval of
the settlement for its action on January 15, 2020.
Fourth, a purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan participants. The
district court dismissed the action, and on July 27, 2020, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WELLS FARGO: Parties in Hernandez Suit Ask Court to Reopen Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs in
Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et al. and the Company have informed the
district court that they will move to reopen the Hernandez
settlement to include additional borrowers who the Company
determined should have been included in the settlement class once
the total number of additional borrowers has been confirmed.
Plaintiffs representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers have
filed separate putative class actions, Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et
al., Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al., Ryder v. Wells Fargo, Liguori
v. Wells Fargo, and Dore v. Wells Fargo, against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, the United States District Court for the District of
Washington, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively.
Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly denied mortgage loan
modifications or repayment plans to customers in the foreclosure
process due to the overstatement of foreclosure attorneys' fees
that were included for purposes of determining whether a customer
in the foreclosure process qualified for a mortgage loan
modification or repayment plan.
The district court in the Hernandez case certified a nationwide
breach of contract class for foreclosed borrowers and denied
certification on claims pertaining to other impacted borrowers.
In March 2020, the Company entered into an agreement pursuant to
which the Company will pay $18.5 million to resolve the claims of
the certified class in the Hernandez case, which was approved by
the district court in October 2020.
The plaintiffs and the Company have informed the district court
that they will move to reopen the Hernandez settlement to include
additional borrowers who the Company determined should have been
included in the settlement class once the total number of
additional borrowers has been confirmed.
The Company has identified a population of additional borrowers
during the relevant class period whose loans had not previously
been reviewed for inclusion in the original population of impacted
customers. The identification of these additional borrowers may
also increase the potential class of mortgage borrowers in the
other pending matters.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Caustic Soda Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Westlake Chemical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend multiple purported class action suits related
to alleged price-fixing of caustic soda.
The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed
since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.
The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.
The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin),
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation
d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective
named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of
either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in
the U.S.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.
The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser
lawsuits was denied, so those cases will proceed with discovery.
In October 2020, a similar class action proceeding was filed in
Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec.
This case seeks authorization of a class action on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased caustic soda or products
containing caustic soda from October 1, 2015 through the date of
the authorization of such class action or such other date deemed
appropriate by the court.
Westlake said. "At this time, the Company is not able to estimate
the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's
consolidated financial statements either in the current period or
in future periods."
Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction.
WESTPAC BANKING: Auto Dealers Commission Related Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the company and
St George Finance Limited (SGF), continues to defend a class action
suit related to flex commissions paid to auto dealers.
On 16 July 2020, a class action was commenced against Westpac
Banking Corporation and St George Finance Limited (SGF) in the
Supreme Court of Victoria in relation to flex commissions paid to
auto dealers from 1 March 2013 to 31 October 2018.
This proceeding is one of two class actions brought by Maurice
Blackburn against a number of lenders in the auto finance
industry.
It is alleged that Westpac and SGF are liable for the unfair
conduct of dealers acting as credit representatives and engaged in
misleading or deceptive conduct.
The damages sought are unspecified.
Westpac and SGF are defending the proceedings.
Another law firm publicly announced in July 2020 that it is
preparing to commence a class action against Westpac entities in
relation to flex commissions paid to auto dealers.
Westpac has not been served with a claim from that law firm on flex
commissions. Westpac has not paid flex commissions since 1 November
2018 following an industry-wide ban issued by ASIC.
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WESTPAC BANKING: BT Life Cash Investment Option Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that BT Funds
Management Limited (BTFM) and Westpac Life Insurance Services
Limited (WLIS) continues to defend a class action suit related to
BTFM's BT Super for Life cash investment option.
On September 5, 2019, a class action against BTFM and WLIS was
commenced in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to aspects
of BTFM's BT Super for Life cash investment option. The claim
follows other industry class actions.
It is alleged that BTFM failed to adhere to a number of obligations
under the general law, the relevant trust deed and the
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), and that WLIS
was knowingly concerned with BTFM's alleged contraventions.
The damages sought by the claim are unspecified.
BTFM and WLIS are defending the proceedings.
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WESTPAC BANKING: Class Suit Over Consumer Credit Insurance Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to its sale of
consumer credit insurance (CCI).
On 28 February 2020, a class action was commenced against Westpac
Banking Corporation, Westpac General Insurance Limited and Westpac
Life Insurance Services Limited in the Federal Court of Australia
in relation to Westpac's sale of CCI.
The claim follows other industry class actions.
It is alleged that the three entities failed to adhere to a number
of obligations in selling CCI in conjunction with credit cards,
personal loans and flexi loans.
The damages sought by the claim are unspecified.
The three entities are defending the proceedings. Westpac no longer
sells CCI products.
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WESTPAC BANKING: Deal Reached in Bill Swap Reference Rate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that a settlement has
been reached in the class action suit related to bank bill swap
reference rate.
In August 2016, a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Westpac and a number of other Australian and international banks
and brokers alleging misconduct in relation to the bank bill swap
reference rate.
Westpac has reached agreement with the Plaintiffs to settle this
class action.
The terms of the settlement are currently confidential and subject
to negotiation and execution of settlement papers and Court
approval.
Westpac holds a provision in relation to this matter.
Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial
services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and
internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank,
Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and
Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New
South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in
October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered
in Sydney, Australia.
WILLIAMS PLANT: McManus Sues Over Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MCMANUS, ERIC SMITH, EMILIO LOAISIGA v. WILLIAMS PLANT
SERVICES, L.L.C.; KEITH BEAM and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No.
CAM-L-003658-20 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty., November 6, 2020) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly
situated arising from the Defendants' unlawful conduct in violation
of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
All three Plaintiffs worked for Defendant Williams Plant Services
at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant in Forked River, New
Jersey. In or around March 2020, Defendant Beam became the
supervisor for all three Plaintiffs at the said location.
The Plaintiffs allege that they were directly retaliated by the
Defendants as a result of having engaged in protected conduct under
CEPA when they disclosed, objected to and refused to participate in
activities, policies and practices which they reasonably believed
were in violation of a law, a rule or regulation promulgated,
pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy, particularly
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.
The Defendants' actions, including terminating Plaintiffs, were
intentional, purposeful, willful and egregious retaliation, and
performed by members of upper managements, making punitive damages
warranted, the suit says.
Loaisiga began working for the Defendants in or around November
2019 as a foreman and was terminated from his employment on or
around May 1, 2020.
McManus began working for the Defendants in or around October 2019
in a radiological controlled area and was terminated on or around
May 16, 2020.
Smith began working for the Defendants on or around October 21,
2019 as a laborer and was terminated on or around May 16, 2020.
Williams Plant Services, LLC provides construction services. The
Company offers general contracting services, as well as renders
plant maintenance and modifications assistance and other support
and specialty services to nuclear, hydro and fossil power
generation, pulp and paper, refining and petrochemical, government,
and other heavy industries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
WINGO SERVICE: Vaughn Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
DALE VAUGHN, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WINGO SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-03915 (S.D. Tex., November 17, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends the Defendant failed to pay him and all
other similarly situated time-and-a-half for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek as a result of the Defendant's
misclassification of its employees.
Mr. Vaughn worked for the Defendant as a technician from 2006 until
2020.
Wingo Service Company, Inc. is a full service industrial and
electrical services company with primary operations in Texas and
Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
WIPRO LTD: Ruffing Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Unlawful Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RUFFING, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
WIPRO LIMITED, WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES, WIPRO LLC, AND WIPRO USA LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05545 (E.D. Pa., November 6, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Civil Rights Act of
1866 for denying the Plaintiff timely payment of overtime wages,
for unlawful termination based on race and age, and in retaliation
for complaining of FLSA violations.
Mr. Ruffing is a 61-year-old White man who resides in Phoenixville,
Pennsylvania. He was employed by Quest Diagnostics and its
predecessor companies in its data center in West Norriton for
approximately 30 years. His last job title was senior operations
analyst.
Wipro Limited is an Indian multinational corporation that provides
information technology, consulting and business process
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Frances Ryan, Esq.
WUSINICH & SWEENEY, LLC
211 Welsh Pool Road, Suite 236
Exton, PA 19341
Telephone: (610) 594-1600
WPX ENERGY: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Ongoing in Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a putative class
action initiated by purchasers of natural gas is ongoing in
Wisconsin court.
Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.
The company currently a defendant in class action litigation and
other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states.
These cases were transferred to the federal court in Nevada.
In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in
favor of us and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs'
lack of standing. On January 8, 2009, the court denied the
plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal
and entered judgment in our favor.
On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying
class certification and remanded to the MDL Court. On September 7,
2018, those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to the
originally filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin.
In February 2019, settlement agreements with the Kansas and
Missouri class claimants were executed, and on August 5, 2019,
after the final fairness hearing, the court approved the settlement
and entered final judgment.
In the Wisconsin putative class action, the case was remanded to
its originally filed court of the Western District of Wisconsin for
trial.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tulsa, Oklahoma-based WPX Energy, Inc. operates in the exploration
and production segment of the oil and gas industry and its
operations are primarily located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico
Colorado. The Company specialize in development and production from
tight-sands and shale formations in the Delaware, Williston and San
Juan Basins.
XEROX CORP: Bid to Dismiss Ribbe Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in Ribbe v. Jacobson, et al., is pending.
On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard,
Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas
Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey
Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince,
Ann N. Reese, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara
Martinez Tucker.
Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.
The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the then members of the
Xerox Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle
shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox,
its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation in connection
with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018 to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox, including a consolidated putative class
action, In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation
("XCCSL"), and actions filed by Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm
Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason v. Xerox Corporation, et al.,
against the same defendants as well as, in the first Deason action,
former Xerox Chief Executive Officer Ursula M. Burns.
Plaintiff alleged that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.
Plaintiff also alleged that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.
The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleged perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.
Among other things, plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On
June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On July
12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand.
On July 18, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and adjourned
sine die the deadline by which defendants must file any motions to
dismiss the complaint.
On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations regarding
the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well as
additional allegations, including, among others, that the members
of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated plaintiff's
demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to pursue the
claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement announced in
November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by Xerox of its
interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of Fujifilm's
breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the "FX Sale
Transaction"), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a
potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami
Firefighters derivative action described below.
In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership (the "Icahn defendants") and asserts claims
against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami
Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP
stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information
concerning Xerox's potential acquisition of HP.
In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe's prior complaint, the
FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters
relating to the Icahn defendants' alleged purchases of HP stock.
On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe.
At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the
motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff
in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its motion. On July 23,
2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court issued an order
denying the motion and setting certain case deadlines.
Discovery has commenced. On August 7, 2020, Xerox, the director
defendants, and the Icahn defendants filed separate motions to
dismiss. On October 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a cross-motion
seeking, among other relief, joinder of Xerox Holdings Corporation
as a nominal defendant. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and
plaintiff's cross-motion was completed on October 16, 2020.
Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter.
Xerox said, "At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination
as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment
or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs."
Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.
YELP INC: Gruber Appeals Ruling in Civil Suit to Calif. High Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eric Gruber, et al., are taking an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GRUBER vs. YELP, Case No.
CGC16554784, in the California Superior Court for the County of San
Francisco, First Appellate District, Division 3.
The appeal arises from a final judgment after the trial court
granted the motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative,
summary adjudication of Defendant Yelp Inc. Plaintiff Eric Gruber
sued Yelp on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly
situated persons under the California Invasion of Privacy Act for
allegedly recording his phone conversations with Yelp sales
representatives without his notice or consent. The trial court
summarily adjudicated all causes of action in Yelp's favor after
finding no triable issues as to whether Yelp violated section 631,
632 or 632.7 of the California Penal Code. On appeal, Gruber
challenges the court's findings as to his section 632 and 632.7
claims on both legal and factual grounds.
The appellate case is captioned as GRUBER vs. YELP, Case No.
S265509, in the California Supreme Court.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Eric Gruber and a proposed class of similarly
situated persons are represented by:
Zareh A. Jaltorossian, Esq.
KP LAW
150 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91105-3722
Telephone: (626) 639-3525
E-mail: zjaltorossian@kplitigators.com
Defendant-Respondent Yelp Inc. is represented by:
Joshua Briones, Esq.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY
2029 Century Park E, Ste 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3044
Telephone: (310) 226-7887
E-mail: jbriones@mintz.com
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Gregory Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled,
Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation.
A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, brought against the company in the United States
District Court for Utah in January 2019. This case was filed on
behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc., alleging that the
company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud perpetrated by Rust
Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.
The case follows civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) against Rust Rare Coin and its principal, Gaylen
Rust.
During the third quarter of 2020, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in part, dismissing claims
relating to fraud and fiduciary duty, but allowing a claim for
aiding and abetting conversion to proceed.
The case is in the early discovery phase. Trial has not been
scheduled.
Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Evans Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
-------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the civil class action suit entitled, Evans v. CB&T is
in the post-pleading phase
A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against us in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California in May 2017.
This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in
International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the
company liable for losses of class members arising from their
investments in IMG, alleging that we conspired with and knowingly
assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi
scheme.
In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank.
In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard in early April
2019 with the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's
dismissal.
Zions said, "This case is in the post-pleading phase and trial will
not occur for a substantial period of time."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related srvices primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: PPP Loan-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that during the third quarter of 2020, the plaintiffs in
three civil class action lawsuits, Fahmia Inc.v. Zions
Bancorporation, et. al., ImpAcct LLC v. JPMorgan Chase, et. al.,
and Manoloff v. Bank of America, et. al., voluntarily agreed to
dismiss their actions against the company.
These cases alleged that the company wrongly failed to pay agents
of borrowers receiving loans from the company under the
Government's Paycheck Protection Program fees that were allegedly
owed to them under the program.
Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
*********
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 ***