/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210105.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 5, 2021, Vol. 23, No. -2 Headlines 3-D OIL: Class in Hembree FLSA-NMMWA Suit Conditionally Certified A. TEICHERT & SON: Rudolf Files Labor Suit in Calif. State Court ACM RESEARCH: Schall Law Reminds Investors of February 19 Deadline AIR TECH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages to Laborers, Moreno Says ALIBABA GROUP: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ALIBABA GROUP: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 12 Deadline ALIBABA GROUP: Vincent Wong Reminds Reminds of January 12 Deadline ALL-WAYS FORWARDING: Ying Files FLSA Suit in New York AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR: Cummings Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama AMERICAN NATIONAL: Steen Balks at Noncompliant Insurance Policies AMP LTD: Faces Class Action Over Advisers Exit Contracts ANDRADE'S CLEAN: Munoz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Bobcat Drivers ARIZONA JAILS: Satzman Sues Over Violation of Prisoner Civil Rights ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION: Schiller FLSA Suit Goes to C.D. California ATRIA SENIOR: Faces Stickles Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices BAIT INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Suit Says BALANCE STAFFING: June 22 Case Mgmt. Conference in Snipes Suit Set BELLATOR SPORT: Jaquez Files Suit under ADA BERRY CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of January 21 Deadline BIG ISLAND COFFEE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in New York BOARDWALK 1000: Underpays Table Games Dealers, Stubbs Suit Says BOB MARTIN: Settlement in Blair Class Suit Has Final Approval BON BON BON: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline BROADLEAF MARKETING: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Schaffer Claims BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in New York BURKES OUTLET STORES: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA CANDID CARE: Faces Morgan Class Suit in Calif. State Court CAZENOVIA COLLEGE: Hedges Files Suit in New York CD PROJEKT: Responds to Federal Securities Class-Action Lawsuit CD PROJEKT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 22 Deadline CENLAR CAPITAL: Kamrava Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices CHESTER COUNTY: Nurses Get Conditional Cert. in FLSA Class Action CINCINNATI CASUALTY: Milkboy and Stone Soup Suits Consolidated CMG CIT: Faces Erguera Suit Over Health Care Staff's Unpaid Wages COINBASE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Selling XRP Tokens COLONIAL MILLS INC: Jaquez Files Suit under ADA COMMERCIAL LIGHTING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls CONSUMERS CREDIT: Ward Files Suit in Michigan CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Edourad Files Suit in Florida Under FDCPA CRAIN: Winokur Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data CYTEC ENGINEERED: Jauregui Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California DEMOULAS SUPER: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $17.5 Million DES MOINES, IA: Class-action Filed Against Officers Over Protests DESH BANGLA: RJI Filed in Sarker Wage-and-Hour Suit in New York EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Cota Files Suit in California ERIE INSURANCE: Menns Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ERIE INSURANCE: PGB Restaurant Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania EVANS DELIVERY: Settlement in Garcia Class Suit Has Final Approval FAULKNER UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA FERROVIAL SERVICES: Shu Wu Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. FIDELITY CO-OPERATIVE: January 11 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set FIRST MERIDIAN: Faces Benitez Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls FLORIDA: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Prisoners Suit FORTRESS BIOTECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 26 Deadline FORTRESS BIOTECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 26 Deadline FORTRESS BIOTECH: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 26 Deadline FRONTLINE ASSET: Hossain Files FDCPA Suit in New York GENERAL MOTORS: Shake Lawsuit Dismissed in Florida Court GENERALI US: Johner Contract Suit Moved From E.D. Mo. to S.D.N.Y. GODADDY.COM: Wyttmab Suit Transferred to District of Arizona GOLDEN PEANUT: Appeals Ruling in Farmers Antitrust Suit to 4th Cir. GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline GOODRX HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini Sues Over False Registration Statements GP KNIVES LLC: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA HM PLUMBING LLC: Hormozdi Files Suit in Georgia HORIZON FREIGHT: California Drivers Class Certified in Nash Suit HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Payne Class Suit Moved to District of Columbia INFINITY DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Two Class Actions Over Fake COVID Tests INSIGHT VENTURE: Colacurcio WSSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington INTERFACE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of January 11 Deadline INTERFACE INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of January 11 Deadline JOYY INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline K12 INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 19 Deadline K12 INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 19 Deadline KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment KING'S HAWAIIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Sweet Rolls Label KINGS COUNTY: Skaller Sues Over Failed County Committee Meeting KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Class Suit KYOCERA CORP: Faces Kahn Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty LEE'S 4 COCKTAILS: Ruckman Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bartenders LEWIS BROTHERS: Fails to Provide Health Insurance, Caldwell Says LIMA ONE CAPITAL: Adrlassist Files Suit in Georgia LINENS AND HUTCH: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA LVNV FUNDING: Granted Leave to Amend Answers to Shaughnessy Suit MAPLEBEAR INC: Albert Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court MCDONALD'S CORP: Class-Action Lawsuit Grows to Nearly 80 Plaintiffs MCKESSON CORPORATION: Shepard Sues Over Baby's Exposure to Opioids MDL 2972: 8 Blackbaud Data Breach Litig. Moved to South Carolina MDL 2973: 63 Elmiron Product Liability Suits Transferred to N.J. MDL 2974: 55 IUD Product Liability Suits Transferred to M.D. Ga. METLANG LLC: Leopoldo Files Suit in California MIDLAND CREDIT: Can't Compel Arbitration in Madlinger FDCPA Suit MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Rosen Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline MODI AUTO: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls MONTGOMERY, AL: Bid to Certify Class in McCullough Suit Denied NETFIN ACQUISITION: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline NEVADA: Judge Finds DETR No Longer in Contempt in PUA Class Action NEW PEOPLES BANK: Horn Files Suit in Virginia NEW YORK: Judgment in Lisnitzer on Medicaid Eligibility Affirmed NORTHERN DYNASTY: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action NORTHERN DYNASTY: Zhang Investor Law Reminds Feb. 2 Deadline NORTHERN STAR: Monteverde Probes Firm Over BarkBox Proposed Merger NOW OPTICS: Faces Clark Suit Over Unlawful Employment Practices NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Putative Class Suit NY MINUTE MOVERS: Faces Cotton Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PEACHES BOUTIQUE: Faces Geever Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Consumer Class Action in California PHILLIPS 66: Misclassifies Construction Staff, Turek Suit Claims PINNACLE SECURITY: Martinez Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT PINTEREST INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of January 22 Deadline PLAZA RESEARCH CORP: Advanced Dermatology Files TCPA Suit in Ohio PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Bridges Class Suit in S.D. New York QIWI PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline QIWI PLC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action QIWI PLC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline QUTOUTIAO INC: Jan. 15 Deadline Set for Securities Amended Suit RESTAURANT BRANDS: Four Law Firms File Securities Class Actions RESTAURANT BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Filing of Consolidated Amended Suit in Takata OK'd ROSETTA STONE: Lotun Consumer Class Suit Removed to C.D. California RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Appeals Class Action Ruling to Ninth Circuit SACHS ELECTRIC: Granted Judgment on Pleadings in Durham Wage Suit SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Pawar Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against SJI Ongoing in New York SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits Underway in California SMITH & WESSON: Bid to Dismiss Shooting Victims Suit Pending SONA NANOTECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 16 Deadline SONA NANOTECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 16 Deadline SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Schion FLSA Suit Moved From N.D. to W.D. Tex. SPECTRUM BRANDS: Wisconsin Class Action Settlement Awaits Final OK SPLUNK INC: Claimsfiler Reminds of Feb. 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Ongoing SULLIVAN COUNTY, TN: Settles Class Lawsuit Over Jail Overcrowding TEACHERS INVESTMENT: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Haley ERISA Suit TRANSUNION LLC: Sheppard Mullin Attorney Discusses Court Ruling TRI-GRAM EDUCATION: Fails to Pay Wages & Bonus, Duffin et al. Say TRITERRAS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Probes for Securities Violations TYSON FOODS: Court Junks Second Amended Peterson Suit w/o Prejudice TYSON FOODS: Second Amended Fed Cattle Class Suit Tossed UGI CORP: Agreement Reached with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs UNITED STATES: Court Rules in Favor of Radiation-Exposed Veterans UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Missouri River Flooding UNITED STATES: Filing of Fourth Amended Nassiri Complaint Allowed UNITED STATES: Mayle and Rulong Sue Over Unpaid Wages UNITED STATES: More Missouri River Landowners Join New Flood Suit UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT: Burgess Appeals Ruling to 11th Cir. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Faces McElroy Labor Suit in Cal. State Court UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Sweetland-Gil Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. UNIVERSITY OF THE POTOMAC: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA USHEALTH ADVISORS: Faegre Drinker Lawyers Discuss TCPA Suit Ruling VENTRA SANDUSKY: Faces Wobser Suit in Ohio Over FMLA Violation VISA INC: Appeal on Grant of Class Certification Pending VISA INC: Bid for Preliminary OK of Class Action Settlement Pending VISA INC: Class Status Bid in National ATM Council Lawsuit Pending VISA INC: Wal-Mart Canada Appeals Settlement Reached in Class Suits VIVINT SOLAR: Gallo FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California VMWARE INC: Bid to Nix Lopez-Howarth Consolidated Suit Pending VYSTAR CORP: Discovery in LaChapelle Class Suit Underway WALGREEN CO: Julian Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Suit in Calif. Over Data Breach WEBY CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Quezada Claims WELLS FARGO: Magill Files Suit in California State Court WELLS FARGO: Mitchell FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to W.D. Pa. WORLD WRESTLING: Term Sheet Entered in Firefighters Suit YAMAHA GUITAR: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 15 [*] Dozens of Class Actions Filed in U.S. Early Days of Pandemic ********* 3-D OIL: Class in Hembree FLSA-NMMWA Suit Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT HEMBREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3-D OIL FIELD SERVICES & RENTAL, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. CIV 20-00343 RB/CG (D.N.M.), Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the parties' Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification, filed on Dec. 14, 2020. 3-D is a Texas limited liability company that does business in a systematic and continuous manner in New Mexico. Plaintiff Hembree worked for 3-D as a Test Operator from approximately August 2019 through April 2020. He asserts that throughout his employment, 3-D paid him a day rate only with no overtime compensation. He alleges that 3-D also failed to pay similarly situated workers overtime pay. Mr. Hembree now brings claims against 3-D to recover the unpaid overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). He brings his action individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees pursuant to the FLSA, and also as a Rule 23 class action pursuant to the NMMWA. Mr. Hembree describes 3-D's business and its employees' various responsibilities. He asserts that based on his experiences and tenure with 3-D, he is aware that 3-D's illegal practices were impose on other Day Rate Workers. He further asserts that dozens of other individuals who worked with him indicated they were paid in the same manner and were not properly compensated for all hours worked as required by state and federal wage laws. For purposes of the Motion for Conditional Certification, the parties have agreed to conditional certification of the following class pursuant to the FLSA: "Current and former 3-D Oil Field Services & Rental, L.L.C., workers who were classified as employees and performed work on behalf of 3-D in the three years prior to the date the Court grants conditional certification and were paid a day rate. Noting that 3-D has consented to the motion, Judge Brack finds that Hembree has alleged substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. In addition, the parties have proposed an agreed-upon schedule and form of notice. The Judge approves the proposed scheduled, Notice, and Consent Form as outlined by the parties. Judge Brack, therefore, granted the Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification. He conditionally certified the following collective action, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 216(b), for purposes of the case: "Current and former 3-D Oil Field Services & Rental, L.L.C., workers who were classified as employees and performed work on behalf of 3-D in the three years prior to the date of the Order and were paid a day rate." Judge Brack approved the Parties' proposed forms for notice to the putative class members, consent to join, and email notification. The Judge ordered that the Parties follow the following schedule in connection with notice to the Putative Class Members: a. 10 days from the date of the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff's Counsel in Excel (.xlsx) Order format the following information regarding all the Putative Class Members to the extent the Defendant has the information in their possession: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip code; last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address); last known phone numbers; beginning date(s) of engagement; and ending date(s) of engagement (if applicable); b. 21 days from the date of the Plaintiff's Counsel will send a copy of the Court-approved Order Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail, text and by email. The Plaintiff's Counsel will inform the Defendant of the date on which such Notice and Consent Form is mailed; c. 30 days from mailing of Notice, the Plaintiff's counsel is authorized to send an identical Court-approved and Consent Forms to Putative Class Members Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members who have not opted-in. The Plaintiff's Counsel will inform the Defendant of the date on which such Notice and Consent Form is mailed; and d. 60 days from the original date of the mailing of Notice and Consent, the Putative Class Members will have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to the Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with the Forms to the Putative Class Members Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yce8or9q from Leagle.com. A. TEICHERT & SON: Rudolf Files Labor Suit in Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against A. Teichert & Son, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Erik Rudolf, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00290903-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 18, 2020). The case arises from employment-related issues. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. provides construction services. The Company builds roads, sidewalks, freeways, curbs, utility trenches, and gutters, as well as produces building materials such as aggregate, readymix, and asphaltic concrete. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com ACM RESEARCH: Schall Law Reminds Investors of February 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against ACM Research, Inc. ("ACM Research" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ACMR) for violations of Sec10(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 March 6, 2019 and October 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before February 19, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/3rTb6sE to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, 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. ACM Research's revenue and profits were diverted to related parties that remained undisclosed. As a result, the Company overstated its revenue and profits to investors. 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 ACM Research, 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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] AIR TECH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages to Laborers, Moreno Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR TECH SERVICES OF PASCO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-03100 (M.D. Fla., December 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Moreno was employed as a manual laborer by the Defendant from approximately August 3, 2019 until approximately October 12, 2020. Air Tech Services of Pasco, Inc. is a company that provides air conditioning and air conditioning installation services, headquartered in Pasco County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com ALIBABA GROUP: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA) Investors Affected: July 20, 2020 - November 3, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Alibaba Group Holding Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=11843&from=1 GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX) Investors Affected: September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in GoodRx Holdings, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants' knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge, defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11843&from=1 Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR) Investors Affected: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Restaurant Brands International Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11843&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] ALIBABA GROUP: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 29 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE: BABA) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: July 20, 2020 and November 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in BABA: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?id=11834&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Alibaba Group Holding Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders have until January 12, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the BABA lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] ALIBABA GROUP: Vincent Wong Reminds Reminds of January 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11805&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021 Class Period: July 20, 2020 - November 3, 2020 Allegations against BABA include that: (1) Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ALL-WAYS FORWARDING: Ying Files FLSA Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All-Ways Forwarding of N.Y. Inc. The case is styled as Justin Ying, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All-Ways Forwarding of N.Y. Inc. formerly known as: All-Ways Forwarding International doing business as: All-Ways, All-Ways Forwarding Int'l Inc. doing business as: All-Ways, All-Ways Pacific LLC doing business as: All-Ways, All-Ways Forwarding Holdings LLC doing business as: All-Ways, Solomon Weber, David Paskes, Paul Selvage, Ezra Danziger and Paul Reisz, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06242 (E.D., N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. All-Ways Forwarding Int'l Inc. is located in Elizabeth, NJ, United States and is part of the Freight Forwarding Services Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR: Cummings Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jim Cummings, David Dinkevich, Richard Stein and Wendy Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Honda Motor Co Inc, Defendant, was transferred from New Jersey with Case No.: 2:20-cv-13000 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Northeastern) on Dec. 23, 2020, and assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02065-LCB. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability filed pursuant over Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in 1959.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. George, Esq. Seeger Weiss, LLP 550 Broad Street, Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: (973) 639-9100 - and - Christopher A. Seeger Seeger Weiss LLP 55 Challenger Road 6TH Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Tel: (973) 639-9100 Fax: (973) 639-9393 AMERICAN NATIONAL: Steen Balks at Noncompliant Insurance Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYRA STEEN, individually, and as successor-in-interest to JANICE WILLIAMS and on behalf of the Class, JANET WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of the Class v. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-11226 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2020) arises from the refusal of the Defendant to comply with mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code as well as California common law regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance policies. The complaint alleges that since January 1, 2013, ANIC and other related entities have systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination. ANIC has failed to notify thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite being required to do so on an annual basis. All of these important safeguards are required by, among other sources, California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.1 California law requires strict compliance with these safeguards and ANIC refuses to comply. As a result, ANIC has failed to properly administer policies, evaluate the status of payments due under policies and pay claims to beneficiaries for policies improperly lapsed or terminated. American National Insurance Company offers personalized insurance coverage for life, home, business, auto and much more. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Georg M. Capielo, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net gcapielo@einsurelaw.com sball@einsurelaw.com AMP LTD: Faces Class Action Over Advisers Exit Contracts -------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Kendell, writing for Independent Financial Adviser, reports that an adviser involved in the current class action against AMP has said the wealth giant is pressuring exiting planners to sign contracts that would waive their rights to future legal compensation following its drastic revaluing of BOLR contracts last year. In a recent episode of the XY Adviser podcast, former AMP adviser David Haseldine said recent developments in the case had seen AMP taken to task for hidden clauses in its exit contracts which excluded departing planners from participating in the action brought against the wealth giant earlier in the year. "It's come out as part of the class action hearing - Corrs [Chambers Wesgarth] said to the judge ‘this is just wrong', so the concession was now AMP have to spell out to people that they want to have sign these contracts that if they do sign they will be waiving their rights," Mr Haseldine said. "They are still putting these bullshit contracts in front of planners, but they've got to spell it out that if they do sign they will be waiving their rights. I don't know how this is going to play out, but it's all sorts of wrong." Mr Haseldine, who purchased a book of majority grandfathered commission clients from AMP in 2015 for $240,000 using a loan from AMP Bank, said he had failed an audit of 15 ongoing fee arrangement client files in February, after having his practice value reduced when AMP wrote down its BOLR values in August 2019. "That gave AMP the ability to turn off the fees to those clients. Going back the last two years since the royal commission, my practice was struggling, so you turn off the fees to half my ongoing fee clients and I'm pretty much insolvent," he said. Mr Haseldine said AMP Bank offered to make his debt interest free in return for taking his home as security, but he declined after discovering terms within the contract said the bank was able to put the loan into default "at their discretion". Responding to Mr Haseldine's comments in the podcast, an AMP spokesperson said, "AMP Bank's priority is supporting advisers, addressing their unique needs and circumstances so fair and reasonable outcomes can be reached". Mr Haseldine said he had handed in his authorisation with AMP and managed to refinance the debt through a third party without signing a settlement deed with the company, which would have "waived [my] rights against all future actions against AMP" and left him unable to work as an adviser for a number of years. "I'm now moving on with my business and my life - I'm $200,000 in debt over and above the value I've lost over the last 10 years being associated with AMP, but I have loyal clients so I've been able to retrieve some of it," Mr Haseldine said. "But for the guys that have had no option but to take the crumbs AMP has left on the table and sign away their rights in the process that are still in debt and can't work for three years, they are the guys and ladies I really feel for because there's a distinct lack of hope for that group, which is a horrible place to be." The comments come following recent ifa reporting that exiting AMP planners were not being allowed a proper appeals process after failing file audits, which could see them lose the full value of their business under the terms of their commercial agreements with the wealth giant. A spokesperson for AMP told ifa at the time there was "a process for advisers should they wish to have their audit reassessed and present additional information". "The BOLR audit is a thorough process designed to ensure advisers receive fair and appropriate valuations based on the quality of their business and fulfillment of their service agreements with clients," the spokesperson said. [GN] ANDRADE'S CLEAN: Munoz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Bobcat Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO JIMENEZ MUNOZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDRADE'S CLEAN UP, INC., THE BEST TURN, INC. d/b/a ANDRADE'S CLEAN UP, and JORGE ANDRADE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01111 (M.D. Tenn., December 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Munoz was employed as a Bobcat driver by the Defendants from approximately August 2018 until July 2020. Andrade's Clean Up, Inc. is a construction company, with its principal place of business located at 4141 N. Arnold Mill Road, Woodstock, Georgia. The Best Turn, Inc., doing business as Andrade's Clean Up, is a construction company, with its principal place of business located at 2905 Holbrook Campground Road, Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter A. Higdon, Esq. Miguel Bouzas, Esq. FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: hunter@fgbolaw.com miguel@fgbolaw.com ARIZONA JAILS: Satzman Sues Over Violation of Prisoner Civil Rights ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Shinn, et al. The case is styled as Stacy Satzman, Daniel Brinauer, Bonnie Huffman and on all those similarly situated v. David Shinn, Director of ADOC Rehabilitation & Reentry, in his official capacity and the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry, Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the prisoner civil rights. The case is assigned to Judge Steven P. Logan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janet Marie Howe, Esq. Jordan Andrew Kroop, Esq. Thomas Dean Ryerson, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 351-8187 Facsimile: (602) 648-7087 E-mail: jhowe@perkinscoie.com jkroop@perkinscoie.com tryerson@perkinscoie.com ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GEORGE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2017425, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02674 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide compensation for non-productive wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay wages upon ending employment, and unfair competition. Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd. is a company that provides trucking transportation services, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Devin Rauchwerger, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com drauchwerger@fisherphillips.com ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION: Schiller FLSA Suit Goes to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FRANCISCO SCHILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS20014776, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02662 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to timely pay wages due upon separation of employment; failure to reimburse business-related expenses; and unfair competition. Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd. is a company that provides trucking transportation services, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Devin Rauchwerger, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com drauchwerger@fisherphillips.com ATRIA SENIOR: Faces Stickles Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE STICKLES and MICHELE RHODES, individuals on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-09220 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other Class members overtime wages, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to authorize and permit rest breaks, failed to furnish accurate wage statements, failed to promptly pay the overtime and/or double time wages owing to them, and engaged in unfair business practices. Plaintiff George Stickles is a citizen of California who was employed by Atria as a "Sales Director" from approximately April 2018 to August 2018. Plaintiff Michele Rhodes is a citizen of California who was employed by Atria as a "Sales Director" in La Jolla, California from approximately October 2019 to July 2020. The Defendants own and operate living facilities for older people who need assistance with daily living. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 Facsimile: (626) 921-4932 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com BAIT INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAIT INC., a California corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02455-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because Defendant's Website, http://www.baitme.com/,is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, resulting in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bait Inc. is a premium brick and click concept retailer in footwear, apparel, and high end collectibles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, 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 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com BALANCE STAFFING: June 22 Case Mgmt. Conference in Snipes Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ A case management conference has been set for June 22, 2021 at 8:45 a.m. in the case styled as Ananias Snipes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Balance Staffing Workforce LLC a California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010803 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 23, 2020). The type of the case is stated as filed over Unlimited Civil Other Employment. Balancing Staffing provides workforce management solutions and staffing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JAMES R. HAWKINS, II, Esq. 106 Jordan Lane Stamford, CT 06903 BELLATOR SPORT: Jaquez Files Suit under ADA ------------------------------------------- Bellator Sport Worldwide LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bellator Sport Worldwide LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10822 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Bellator Sport Worldwide LLC manufactures sporting equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com BERRY CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of January 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11805&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021 Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates inclusive Allegations against BRY include that: (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] BIG ISLAND COFFEE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Big Island Coffee Roasters is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Island Coffee Roasters, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10811 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Big Island Coffee Roasters is an award-winning Hawai'i coffee farm, mill & roaster with premium coffee products from Puna, Kona, Ka'u, Hamakua, Maui & Oahu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BOARDWALK 1000: Underpays Table Games Dealers, Stubbs Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GLENDON D. STUBBS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOARDWALK 1000, LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL AND CASINO ATLANTIC CITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-19798 (D.N.J., Dec. 18, 2020) arises from the failure of the Defendant to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, the mandated federal minimum wage rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its casino property located in Atlantic City, New Jersey as table games dealer from approximately May 2019 through September 2019. Boardwalk 1000, LLC d/b/a Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Atlantic City is a casino and hotel company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com BOB MARTIN: Settlement in Blair Class Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ASHLEIGH BLAIR, ADRIANA HERNANDEZ, AND JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID BRIAN BAILEY, an individual; BOB MARTIN, INC. dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN'S CLUB (Westminster), a California corporation; BAILEY FOOD AND BEVERAGE GROUP, LLC dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN'S CLUB (Anaheim), a California limited liability corporation; CDBM REDLANDS, LLC dba THE LIBRARY GENTLEMEN'S CLUB (Redlands), a Nevada limited liability corporation; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SA19-cv-01849 JFW (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval came before the Court for hearing on Dec. 21, 2020. Having considered whether to order final approval of the class action settlement in the action pursuant to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release and the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement, Judge Walter grants final approval of the settlement provided for in the Agreement and Addendum. The Settlement Class consists of: All current and former non-exempt hourly employees holding the position of Entertainer (i.e., exotic dancer) employed by Defendants, or any of them, in the State of California, counties of San Bernardino and Orange, working at any of the Defendants' establishments located in Westminster, Anaheim, or Redlands, at any time during the time period from July 17, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement June 15, 2020. The Judge finally approves the Settlement for the reasons set forth in the motion for Final Approval, and approves the settlement of the Released Claims as defined in the Agreement. He further approves the injunctive relief providing that as of Jan. 1, 2020 the Defendants have converted all of the Entertainers at the Clubs to employees and that absent a good faith argument regarding an applicable change in case or statutory law, they will continue to treat all Entertainers at the Clubs performing topless, semi-nude or bikini entertainment as employees. The Class Counsel, Peter E. Garrell and John M. Kennedy of Fortis LLP and John P. Kristensen and Jesenia A. Martinez of Kristensen LLP, will continue to serve as the Class Counsel and will oversee and perform the duties necessary to effectuate the Settlement. The Judge finds that a Class Representative incentive award in the amount of $7,500 to each of the Class Representatives, Ashleigh Blair, Adriana Hernandez and Jane Doe 1, is appropriate for the risks undertaken and service to the Settlement Class. He orders that the Settlement Administrator make these payments in conformity with the terms of the Settlement. The Judge also finds that (i) the attorneys' fees in the amount of $543,750 and actual litigation costs of $18,091.50 for the Class Counsel, and (ii) the Settlement Administrator's costs in the amount of $75,000, are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and orders that the Settlement Administrator distribute the payments in conformity with the terms of the Settlement. The Judge allocates $100,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount to penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), with 75% of the PAGA penalties, $75,000, to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and 25% of the PAGA penalties, $25,000, to remain part of the Net Settlement Amount. All payments will be made in accordance with the Order Approving Addendum to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated Dec. 17, 2020. Except as provided in the Order, the Plaintiffs will take nothing against the Defendants by their First Amended Complaint, and final judgment will be entered thereon, as set forth in the Order. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree in a writing signed by all the counsel and filed with the Court to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the Agreement and Addendum. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final Judgment, and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwryjux from Leagle.com. BON BON BON: Angeles Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------ Bon Bon Bon, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bon Bon Bon, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10797 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Bon Bon Bon, LLC is located in Hamtramck, MI, United States and is part of the Bakery Product Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) Class Period: April 24, 2019 - November 16, 2020 Deadline: February 3, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/bsx The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (2) as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV) Class Period: May 15, 2017 - November 30, 2020 Deadline: February 8, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/nerv The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the truth about the feedback received from the FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (2) the Phase 2b study did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the United States; (3) the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness; (4) the Company's plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be "highly unlikely" to support the submission of an NDA; (5) reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead to "substantial review issues" because the trials were inadequate and not well-controlled; and (6) as a result, the Minerva's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (OTC: SMICY) Class Period: April 23, 2020 - September 26, 2020 Deadline: February 8, 2021 For more info: www.bgandg.com/smicy The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an "unacceptable risk" that equipment supplied to SMIC would be used for military purposes; (2) SMIC was foreseeably at risk of facing U.S. restrictions; (3) as a result of restrictions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC's suppliers would need "difficult-to-obtain" individual export licenses; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) Class Period: 4/24/2019 - 11/16/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 2, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-boston-scientific-corporation-securities-litigation-4 If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] BROADLEAF MARKETING: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Schaffer Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SCHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROADLEAF MARKETING & SEO, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-02435 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to solicit them to purchase the Defendant's services without obtaining prior express consent. Broadleaf Marketing & SEO, LLC is a digital marketing and website development agency based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Brooklyn Bedding LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brooklyn Bedding LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10808 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Brooklyn Bedding is an American manufacturer of mattresses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BURKES OUTLET STORES: Bishop Asserts Breach of ADA -------------------------------------------------- Burkes Outlet Stores, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Burkes Outlet Stores, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10640 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020). Burke's Outlet Stores, LLC is a discounted brands store headquartered in Florida, with a parent corporate company name of Bealls, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CANDID CARE: Faces Morgan Class Suit in Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candid Care Co., a Delaware Corporation. The case is styled as Kaliva Morgan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Candid Care Co., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC20588430 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is filed on behalf of non-exempt employees. A case management conference is set for May 12, 2021 before Judge Samuel K. Feng. Candid Care Co. manufactures dental equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. YEREMIAN LAW 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 CAZENOVIA COLLEGE: Hedges Files Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ Cazenovia College is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cazenovia College, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10850 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Cazenovia College is a small, independent, co-educational, baccalaureate college, located in Cazenovia, New York, United States. Cazenovia offers a comprehensive liberal arts education with academic and co-curricular programs devoted to developing leaders in their professional fields.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CD PROJEKT: Responds to Federal Securities Class-Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kshiteej Naik, writing for IGN India, reports that New York-based Rosen Law Firm has recently filed a class-action lawsuit against CD Projekt S.A. on behalf of its investors over the company's alleged violation of federal securities laws. The lawsuit alleges that CD Projekt has made misleading statements about Cyberpunk 2077 and it was unplayable on last-gen consoles such as Xbox One and PlayStation 4 due to several bugs. CD Projekt S.A. has made a regulatory announcement in response to the lawsuit. The publisher has acknowledged the lawsuit and said that the court will decide "whether the actions undertaken by the Company and members of its Management Board in connection with the release of Cyberpunk 2077 constituted a violation of federal laws, i.e. by misleading investors and, consequently, causing them to incur damages." The publisher has also said, "The complaint does not specify the quantity of damages sought," and it will "undertake vigorous action to defend itself against any such claims." [GN] CD PROJEKT: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CD Projekt S.A. (OTC: OTGLY, OTGLF) between January 16, 2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CD Projekt investors under the federal securities laws. To join the CD Projekt class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2010.htmlhttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.html or 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) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3) consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 February 22, 2021. 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-2010.htmlhttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.html or 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Dec. 30 disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the U.S. listed securities of CD Projekt S.A. (OTC: OTGLY, OTGLF) ("CD Projekt" or the "Company") who acquired their shares between January 16, 2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") of CD Projekt SA and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of CD Projekt SA, you may, no later than February 22, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of CD Projekt SA. According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: -- Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs; -- as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; -- consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; and -- as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 18, 2020, Market Insider reported that "Sony announced that it was pulling [Cyberpunk 2077] from its PlayStation Store and offering full refunds to players following a wave of complaints about the long-awaited title." The Market Insider report also quoted the Company's co-CEO stating during an analyst call that "[a]fter three delays, we were too focused on releasing the game," and "[w]e ignored signals about the need for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen consoles." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.49 per ADR, or 15%, to close at $18.50 per ADR on December 18, 2020. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss or join this action, or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this ongoing situation, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] CENLAR CAPITAL: Kamrava Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAYAN KAMRAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENLAR CAPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING a/k/a CENLAR FSB, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11465 (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has incurred financial obligations to the Defendant for a home mortgage loan. Subsequently sometime in 2020, the Defendant began placing numerous telephone calls to the Plaintiff, which persisted on a monthly basis throughout the year of 2020, reminding him to make payments on the loan and alerting him that he had an account notification. Additionally, the Plaintiff received a statement from the Defendant on or around October 8, 2020 notifying him of his upcoming November 1, 2020 payment on the Loan with an indication that if he paid late, a $75.05 late fee will be charged. Despite receiving a written communication via fax on or around November 5, 2020 from the Plaintiff requesting cease and desist from contacting him regarding the loan in any manner, the Defendant has continued to repeatedly contacting the Plaintiff via telephone and written communication throughout November 2020. The Defendant imposed an unlawful additional administrative hurdle by requiring the Plaintiff to fill out an additional document before the Defendant would agree to cease communicating with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff began to feel extremely frustrated, harassed and annoyed after several months of receiving telephone calls from the Defendant about the Loan. Those unwanted calls caused the Plaintiff to suffer an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy and to live without the utility of their cellular phones by occupying their telephone with one or more unwanted calls, causing nuisance and lost time. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly made calls through an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and/or artificial or prerecorded voice after the Plaintiff revoked consent to be contacted. Cenlar Capital Corporation d/b/a Central Loan Administration and Reporting a/k/a Cenlar FSB provides loan services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com - and – Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com CHESTER COUNTY: Nurses Get Conditional Cert. in FLSA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the health care industry seems to be ground zero for a particular kind of class action lawsuit. Many of these health care institutions have policies where a thirty-minute lunch period is automatically deducted from the daily scroll of hours. This is quite understandable, from an operational perspective, as it usually is difficult for employees to go to their time clock, punch out and then back in for lunch. Although this facilitates operational efficiency, it also leads to allegations that employees supposedly worked through lunch and were not paid. Then, a class action ensues. The latest example of this is a group of nurses who have received conditional certification for a class in a FLSA collective action based on the theory that they took their lunch breaks when they really worked. The case is entitled Hamid et al. v. The Chester County Hospital and was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Securing conditional certification is often not that hard, as only a modest showing of commonality has to be made. In approving the request for conditional certification, the Judge agreed that the named plaintiff showed sufficient commonality with other workers, concluding she had the same job duties and same kind of claims as the other hourly nurses at the Hospital. He concluded that "Hamid has provided some evidence, beyond mere speculation, of a ‘factual nexus' between defendants' pay and break structure policy for Hamid and defendant's pay and break structure policy for other nurses." The lawsuit charged that the hospital automatically deducted break times from employee wages their pay notwithstanding that the employees duties' prevented them from taking their breaks. A second theory of the lawsuit is the employer's alleged failure to include weekend premium pay, e.g. shift differentials, when computing overtime pay. Under the FLSA regulations, these kinds of extra payments must be included when the employer calculates overtime. The Judge noted that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to meet the "lenient" standard for conditional certification. This low standard necessitates that the named plaintiff must demonstrate a "factual nexus" between the application of the employer's policy to not only the named plaintiff but to the co-workers allegedly affected in the same manner. The Judge concluded that the employer's pay and break policies applied to all workers, causing them to not receive all of the wages they were entitled to. The Judge also found that the named plaintiff also had made "a modest showing" that she worked under the same terms and conditions of employment as the other employees. Thus, a class, at this time, was appropriate. The Takeaway I keep harping on the concept of a fail-safe mechanism. Any employer who utilizes an automatic deduction system for lunches, which is quite legal, must ensure that there is some way for employees who ostensibly work through lunch to report that missed lunch. Then, the employer can pay for the time if it deems it was properly worked. That way, if the employee does not use the reporting system and then files a suit for wages, he is put on the defensive as to why he did not use the reporting mechanism. And, there is no (good) answer for that . . . [GN] CINCINNATI CASUALTY: Milkboy and Stone Soup Suits Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MILKBOY CENTER CITY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, and STONE SOUP, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case Nos. 20-2036 and 20-2614 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation and for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, and denied the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. Plaintiff Milkboy is a music venue, bar, and restaurant, and Plaintiff Stone Soup is a catering service. Both Plaintiffs are insured by the Cincinnati companies (Milkboy by the Cincinnati Casualty and Stone Soup by the Cincinnati Insurance), and both filed claims for business interruption coverage under their insurance policies relating to COVID-19 closures. The Cincinnati companies rejected the claims, and each company filed suit in the District. Both Milkboy and Stone Soup have moved for consolidation of their two cases, and for the appointment of the Barrack, Rodos & Bacine law firm as the interim class counsel. As for consolidation, the Plaintiffs point out that the two policies use identical or nearly identical language, and that the construction of their business interruption policies is likely to involve many of the same legal issues. As for appointing the interim class counsel, they explain that Barrack has a litigation team experienced in representing clients affected by the pandemic who have filed business interruption claims. The Cincinnati companies oppose both consolidation and the appointment of the class counsel. They argue that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the consolidation facilitates the administration of justice or that the appointment of the counsel is necessary. Judge Baylson sees no reason why consolidation would cause delay, confusion, or prejudice. As the Plaintiffs note, the fact that the same policy language is at issue means that the Court's interpretation of the policy's meaning will control in both cases. Even though each case calls for an application the policy language to different factual circumstances, there are sufficient common questions of law or fact such that consolidation is appropriate. Case law shows that when one insurance policy applies to various parties in similar circumstances, these kinds of cases are frequently consolidated; it has held true in recent COVID-related matters. The Judge also agrees with the Plaintiff that the interim class counsel should be appointed. A review of the Rule 23(g)(1) factors indicates that the circumstances here weigh in favor of granting the motion. Specifically, the Barrack law firm has the experience, knowledge, and resources necessary to represent the potential class. It has already taken on many similar cases since the start of the pandemic. Further, as the Plaintiffs point out, the fact that the Western District of Missouri has appointed interim class counsel in similar cases provides support for the same action in the instant case. In all, the Judge is satisfied that the Barrack firm would be able to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Finally, the Judge denies the Defendants leave to file a sur-reply, holding it is not in accordance with the Court's pre-trial procedures to routinely allow them, and the Defendants did not raise any cross-motions in their Opposition to warrant a sur-reply in support thereof. The legal standards for consolidation and appointment of the interim class counsel are clear-cut, and any further argument would be repetitive, unhelpful, and add delay to the resolution of a straightforward motion. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation and for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, and denied Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7vvxy3f from Leagle.com. CMG CIT: Faces Erguera Suit Over Health Care Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARITA ERGUERA, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CMG CIT ACQUISITION, LLC, CIRCHARO ACQUISITION LLC and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-01744-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to include all remuneration in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime wages and to timely pay all wages owing at termination of employment in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings the FLSA claim on behalf of herself and all nonexempt hourly health care professionals employed by the Defendants in the United States who, at any time since three years before the filing of this action, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks and received a per diem allowance. The Defendants operate a healthcare staffing company that employs hourly health care professionals for short-term travel assignments at health care providers throughout California and elsewhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 Facsimile: (626) 921-4932 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com COINBASE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Selling XRP Tokens ----------------------------------------------------------- Tarang Khaitan at cryptobriefing.com reports that the plaintiff, Thomas Sandoval, has filed a class-action lawsuit in the Northern District Court of California against Coinbase for profiting from XRP tokens' sale. Coinbase in the Crosshairs Sandoval, hailing from St. Louis County, alleges that Coinbase was aware that XRP is an unregistered security and yet proceeded to sell XRP on their exchange. Coinbase profited by earning a commission on these tokens' sale, therefore violating California's unfair competition law. Ripple Inc. is also being sued by the SEC for selling XRP tokens. The pre-trial will begin on Feb. 22. Meanwhile, Ripple has stated that they will continue to operate in the United States despite the lawsuit. Coinbase will fully halt XRP trading on Jan.19. However, the token will remain listed as it will still be available on Coinbase Custody and the Coinbase Wallet. The exchange has faced other serious allegations which claim that they have discriminated against women and people of color. This recent news does not bode well for the company, which is currently in the process of launching its Initial Public Offering (IPO). [GN] COLONIAL MILLS INC: Jaquez Files Suit under ADA ----------------------------------------------- Colonial Mills, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Colonial Mills, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10819 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Colonial Mills, Inc. is located in Rumford, RI, United States and is part of the Carpet & Rug Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com COMMERCIAL LIGHTING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMERCIAL LIGHTING COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11477 (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful conduct of the Defendant. In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant allegedly placed a call on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around March 2019 by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such call. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4, 2008. Due to the Defendant's unsolicited call, the Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages by incurring certain charges or reduced telephone time for which she had previously paid, and invading her privacy, the suit says. Commercial Lighting Company provides lighting solutions to commercial and industrial customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CONSUMERS CREDIT: Ward Files Suit in Michigan --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumers Credit Union. The case is styled as Jessica Ward, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Consumers Credit Union and Unknown Part(y)(ies) named as DOES 1 thrugh 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01236-JTN-PJG (W.D. Mich., Dec. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Banks and Banking filed over a Federal Question. Consumers Credit Union provides services to community members as a cooperative, not-for-profit financial institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq. McCuneWright LLP 3281 E Guasti Rd., Ste. 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Tel: (909) 557-1250 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Edourad Files Suit in Florida Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Fabienne Edourad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-62635 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. Zeig Law Firm, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com CRAIN: Winokur Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Winokur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-13357-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., Dec. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant Crain for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information in violation of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment. To supplement its revenues, Crain rents, exchanges, or otherwise discloses its customers' personal information to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and other third parties without the written consent of any of its customers. The information that Crain discloses to each of these various third parties includes each subscriber's full name, home address, and the title of the Crain publications to which he or she subscribes, as well as myriad other personal, lifestyle and demographic information about the subscriber, such as his or her age, gender, income, the name of his or her employer, the industry in which the person works, and the list goes on. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing its customers' Personal Reading Information, Crain is able to disclose the information time and time again to countless third parties. The Defendant rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about Plaintiff's Autoweek magazine subscriptions, from within the State of Michigan, to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed their information to aggressive advertisers, non-profit organizations, and other third-party companies. As a result, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing the Plaintiff's Personal Reading Information, Crain violated the PPPA. Crain also sold, rented, and/or otherwise disclosed, from within the State of Michigan, the Personal Reading Information of its other subscribers to Autoweek magazine, also in violation of the PPPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Winokur was a long-time subscriber to Autoweek magazine, until the magazine was discontinued in late 2019. Crain Communications Inc. is a multi-industry publishing conglomerate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: 305.357.2107 Fax: 305.200.8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Road Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 Phone: 313.303.3472 Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com CYTEC ENGINEERED: Jauregui Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSE JAUREGUI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CYTEC ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC., CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC., CYTEC AEROSPACE MATERIALS (CA) INC., CYTEC PROCESS MATERIALS (CA) INC., SOLVAY USA INC., SOLVAY CHEMICALS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01164932-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-02440 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 unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse required expenses. Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer based in Tempe, Arizona. Cytec Industries Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer based in Woodland Park, New Jersey. Cytec Aerospace Materials (CA) Inc. is part of specialty chemicals company Cytec Industries Inc., headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. Cytec Process Materials (CA) Inc. is part of specialty chemicals company Cytec Industries Inc., headquartered in Santa Fe Springs, California. Solvay USA Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer based in Princeton, New Jersey. Solvay Chemicals, Inc. is a specialty chemicals manufacturer based in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rick Bergstrom, Esq. Josh Dutton, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 E-mail: rbergstrom@jonesday.com jdutton@jonesday.com DEMOULAS SUPER: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $17.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Ary Rosenbaum, Esq. -- Ary@therosenbaumlawfirm.com -- of The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C., in an article for JDSupra, reports that DeMoulas Super Markets settled for $17.5 million in a class-action lawsuit regarding its profit-sharing plan that didn't have a 401(k) feature. The problem in the case was that the Super Market invested assets of the plan too conservatively for its employee. The profit-sharing plan had approximately 11,000 to 13,000 and between $580 million and $756 million in assets between 2013 and 2017. The profit-sharing plan contained only one investment into which participants were automatically invested. The plan's investment policy statement (IPS) called for 70% of participants' assets to be automatically allocated into domestic fixed income options and 30% to be put into equities. The default target allocations might have been good for someone nearing retirement, but not so great for someone who was decades away from retirement. I'm just surprised that a profit-sharing plan that was apparently trustee directed, would have such an allocation like that. [GN] DES MOINES, IA: Class-action Filed Against Officers Over Protests ----------------------------------------------------------------- kcrg.com reports that a Des Moines attorney is suing several police officers and the city over their response to racial justice protests in May. The class-action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone arrested or assaulted by Des Moines officers during a protest on May 31, 2020. Attorney Gina Messamer alleges in the lawsuit that officers illegally arrested and pepper-sprayed people protesting the death of George Floyd while he was in the custody of Minneapolis police. The lawsuit alleges the officers' actions violated protesters' free speech rights and were meant to deter future demonstrations. [GN] DESH BANGLA: RJI Filed in Sarker Wage-and-Hour Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A request for judicial intervention was filed on December 7, 2020, in the case styled Sanjibon A. Sarker v. Choudhury Manjurul Hasan, Desh Bangla Inc., The Bangla Times Inc. and, C.M.M. Hasan, Physician, P.C., Case No. 719490/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., November 18, 2019). The Plaintiff claims for violation of the wage and hour laws on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and for unlawful retaliation. The case is assigned to Judge Lourdes M. Ventura. Desh Bangla Inc. is a newspaper corporation existing under the laws of the State of New York and filed with the New York Department of State on March 25, 2009. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L/O OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 874 Cleaveland St. Ste 1810 West Hempstead, NY 11552 EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Cota Files Suit in California ----------------------------------------------- Equinox Holdings, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02485-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2020). Equinox Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides fitness services such as yoga classes, studio cycling, cardio exercises, martial arts, spa, and personal training. Equinox Holdings serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ERIE INSURANCE: Menns Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MENNS INC. d/b/a THE TAVERN ON CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE and ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02895, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00372-MRH to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by denying the obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other policyholders for the physical loss and damage to their insured properties from measures put in place by the civil authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Menns Inc., doing business as The Tavern on Clark, is an operator of a restaurant and bar, with its principal place of business located in Rockford, Illinois. Erie Insurance Exchange is an insurance company based in Erie, Pennsylvania. Erie Indemnity Company is the management company for the Erie Insurance Exchange, headquartered in Erie, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Barz, Esq. Frank A. Richter, Esq. William J. Edelman, Esq. Gina M. Buschatzke, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com frichter@rgrdlaw.com wedelman@rgrdlaw.com gbuschatzke@rgrdlaw.com - and – Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and – Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Bradley M. Beall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 - and – James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and – Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com - and – Robert Schachter, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 Facsimile: (212) 371-5969 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com - and – Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com ERIE INSURANCE: PGB Restaurant Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PGB RESTAURANT, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02403, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00371-MRH to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by denying the obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other policyholders for the physical loss and damage to their insured properties from measures put in place by the civil authorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. PGB Restaurant, Inc. is a restaurant operator, with its principal place of business located at 8815 W Cermak Rd. in Northern Riverside, Illinois. Erie Insurance Company is a publicly held insurance corporation, headquartered in Erie, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Duncan, Esq. James H. Podolny, Esq. DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 202-3283 Facsimile: (312) 202-3284 E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com jp@duncanlawgroup.com - and – Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq. Michael Kozlowski, Esq. ESBROOK LAW, LLC 77 W. Wacker Dr. Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 319-7680 E-mail: christopher.esbrook@ebsrooklaw.com michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com EVANS DELIVERY: Settlement in Garcia Class Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SANTOS H. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California; RAMIRO OROZCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California; MICHEL SALMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and the general public of California; WILVER ANTONIO VASQUEZ QUINTANILLA and EDGAR VELIZ BAEZA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California, Plaintiffs v. EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC., a corporation; ALLEN CEPEDA; DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04316-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Motion for Final Approval of Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Incentive Awards. The Judge has reviewed the Declaration of Makenna Snow in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and finds that Class Notice has been disseminated to the Class in compliance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order and that the Class Notice constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The Judge approves the settlement of the Action as memorialized in the Settlement Agreement as being fair, just, reasonable, adequate, in the best interests of the Class and its members, and the full and final resolution of the Class's claims. She directs the Parties and their counsel to implement and consummate the Settlement according to its terms and provisions and the Order. Consistent with the terms of the Settlement, all payments under the settlement and the Order are to be made by Evans. The Class is finally certified for settlement purposes. The following Class Member requested exclusion from the Class: Rolando Avalos. The Judge also finds and determines that the Settlement Payments to be paid to the Class Members are fair and reasonable. She orders that payment of those amounts as adjusted in light of the Order be made to the participating Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. She confirms the Stephen Glick and M. Anthony Jenkins of the Law Offices of Stephen Glick as the Class Counsel; and Plaintiffs Santos H. Garcia, Ramiro Orozco, Michel Salmo, Wilver Antonio Vasquez Quintanilla, and Edgar Veliz Baeza as the Class Representatives. The Judge grants final approval of the following amounts to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement: a. Attorneys' fees and costs to be paid to the Law Offices of Stephen Glick in the total amount of $697,320,54.001 in fees as specified below, and $10,717.86 in costs; b. An incentive award (based on the time spent and services provided) of $2,500 each to be paid to Santos H. Garcia and Edgar Veliz Baeza; $2,000 each to be paid to Wilver Antonio Vasquez and Michel Salmo; and 1,500 to be paid to Ramiro Orozco; c. Settlement Administration fees in the amount of $12,460.09 to be paid to ILYM, Inc.; and, d. The sum of $50,000 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The Settlement Administrator will withhold 10% of the attorneys' fees until the Class Counsel provides a declaration stating that all other terms of the settlement have been implemented, as well as a proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees award -- and the Court has issued that order. The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Final Approval Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Final Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72gl7le from Leagle.com. FAULKNER UNIVERSITY: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------- Faulkner University is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Faulkner University, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10851 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Faulkner University is a private Christian university in Montgomery, Alabama. It is affiliated with the Churches of Christ. The university was founded in 1942 by Dr. Rex Turner, Dr. Leonard Johnson and Joe Greer as Montgomery Bible School. In 1953, the school's name was changed to Alabama Christian College.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal FERROVIAL SERVICES: Shu Wu Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SHU WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE INC. f/k/a BROADSPECTRUM INFRASTRUCTURE INC., f/k/a TRANSIELD SERVICES INFRASGRUCTURE INC.; BROADSPECTRUM AMERICAS, INC. f/k/a TRANSFIELD SERVICES AMERICAS, INC.; TIMEC SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC. f/k/a BROADSPECTRUM SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC.; BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-567744, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on December 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-09447 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, non-compliant wage statements, failure to maintain payroll records, wages not timely paid upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Ferrovial Services Infrastructure Inc., formerly known as Broadspectrum Infrastructure, Inc. and Transfield Services Infrastructure Inc., is a company that provides oil & gas and infrastructure solutions across the United States and Canada. Broadspectrum Americas, Inc., formerly known as Transfield Services Americas, Inc., is a company that provides infrastructure maintenance services. Timec Specialty Services, Inc., formerly known as Broadspectrum Specialty Services, Inc., is a contractor based in La Porte, Texas. Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc. is a company that provides oil & gas and infrastructure solutions, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald K. Alberts, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5043 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 E-mail: ralberts@grsm.com FIDELITY CO-OPERATIVE: January 11 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- If You Bought a TelexFree AdCentral or AdCentral Family Package, a $22.5 Million Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights A class action lawsuit brought on behalf of victims of the TelexFree pyramid scheme is currently pending. Plaintiffs allege that they were injured as a result of the Defendants' assistance and participation in the TelexFree pyramid scheme. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' claims. A $22.5 million settlement has now been reached in this litigation regarding claims against Fidelity Co-operative Bank ("Fidelity Bank") and John Merrill (together, the "Fidelity Bank Defendants" or "Settling Defendants"). This is the fourth settlement reached in this litigation. Three settlements were previously reached with nine Defendants and three related third-parties and have received final approval by the Court. Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or do not act. The complete Notice, available at www.TelexFreeSettlement.com, includes information on the Fidelity Bank Defendants' settlement and the lawsuit. Please read the entire Notice carefully. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. The Notice and additional information translated in a variety of other languages is available by visiting www.TelexFreeSettlement.com You may also call 877-829-4140 to obtain additional information in a variety of other languages. Translators are available upon request. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS OBJECT BY JANUARY 11, 2021 Submit your objection explaining why you disagree with the settlement and/or the requested attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and incentive awards. EXCLUDE YOURSELF BY JANUARY 11, 2021 This is the only option that allows you to individually sue the Settling Defendants about the claims asserted in this case. You will no longer be a member of the Settlement Class and you will not receive any funds from this settlement. GO TO THE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 26, 2021 Ask to speak in Court about any aspect of the settlement and/or the requested attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and incentive awards. DO NOTHING You will remain a member of the Settlement Class. You will give up any rights you currently have to separately sue the Settling Defendants for the conduct that is the subject of the lawsuits. For More Information visit www.TelexFreeSettlement.com[GN] FIRST MERIDIAN: Faces Benitez Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIANO BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST MERIDIAN FINANCIAL INC; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02469-WQH-AHG (S.D. Cal., December 18, 2020) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed calls on his cellular telephone number ending in -7919 beginning on or around July 18, 2019 in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing its calls. The Plaintiff asserts that he is not a customer of the Defendant's services and he has never provided any personal information, including his cellular telephone number. Moreover, the Plaintiff has never provided his prior express consent to the Defendant to be contacted using an ATDS. Because of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages by incurring certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he has previously paid, and invading his privacy, the suit says. First Meridian Financial Inc. is a small business loan company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FLORIDA: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Prisoners Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Florida Commission on Offender Review. The case is styled as ALFRED PINDER, on behalf of similarly situated prisoners v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, Case No. 2020-CA-002291 (Fla. Cir., Leon Cty., Dec. 9, 2020). The Plaintiff files with the court a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The case is assigned to Judge Charles Dodson. The Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly situated prisoners, appears pro se. [BN] FORTRESS BIOTECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortress Biotech, Inc. ("Fortress Biotech" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FBIO) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fortress Biotech securities between December 11, 2019 and October 9, 2020 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fbio. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IV Tramadol was not safe for the intended patient population; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the NDA for IV Tramadol; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fbio or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Fortress Biotech you have until January 26, 2021 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] FORTRESS BIOTECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming January 26, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Fortress Biotech, Inc. securities between December 11, 2019 and October 9, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Fortress investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Fortress develops and commercializes pharmaceutical and biotechnology products. In December 2019, the Company's majority-controlled subsidiary, Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. ("Avenue"), submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") for its intravenous ("IV") Tramadol product to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the management of moderate to moderately severe pain in adults in a medically supervised health care setting. On October 12, 2020, Avenue disclosed receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the NDA for its IV Tramadol product. Specifically, the FDA advised Avenue that "it cannot approve the application in its present form" because "IV tramadol, intended to treat patients in acute pain who require an opioid, is not safe for the intended patient population." Specifically, the CRL stated: "[I]f a patient requires an analgesic between the first dose of IV tramadol and the onset of analgesia, a rescue analgesic would be needed. The likely choice would be another opioid, which would result in opioid 'stacking' and increase the likelihood of opioid-related adverse effects." On this news, Fortress's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 23.98%, to close at $3.17 per share on October 12, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) IV Tramadol was not safe for the intended patient population; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the NDA for IV Tramadol; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fortress securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 26, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] FORTRESS BIOTECH: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group on Dec. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (FBIO) from December 11, 2019 through October 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fortress Biotech, Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go https://bit.ly/3pLfZlR or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IV Tramadol was not safe for the intended patient population; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the NDA for IV Tramadol; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 26, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] FRONTLINE ASSET: Hossain Files FDCPA Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Arifa Hossain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06247 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC is a collection agency located in Roseville, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. Horowitz Law, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Tel: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com GENERAL MOTORS: Shake Lawsuit Dismissed in Florida Court -------------------------------------------------------- A Chevy shake lawsuit is over after GM successfully argued the plaintiff lacked standing to bring nationwide class action lawsuit claims. The plaintiff purchased a new 2015 Chevrolet Silverado, but it was allegedly equipped with a defective aluminum driveshaft that causes sudden violent shaking at certain highway speeds. The aluminum driveshaft is a long tube that runs the length of the interior and transmits torque from the engine to the wheels. GM drivers report feeling like the vehicles are going out of control from the violent shaking. Then the driveshafts allegedly wear out and fall to the ground, leaving the vehicles unusable. According to the Chevy shake lawsuit, defective driveshafts were installed in these GM models. 2015 to present Cadillac Escalade 2014 to present Chevrolet Silverado 2015 to present Chevrolet Suburban 2015 to present Chevrolet Tahoe 2014 to present GMC Sierra 2015 to present GMC Yukon/Yukon XL The plaintiff alleges GM knew about the so-called Chevy shake through internal testing, complaints filed by owners and media reports about the condition. According to the lawsuit, consumer complaints filed with federal safety regulators are delivered to GM and reviewed by GM's engineers. But when customers reported the Chevy shake symptoms, technicians allegedly would admit there were problems, then "later misrepresent the problem to avoid having to address it." The Chevy shake lawsuit also alleges customers sometimes replace the aluminum driveshafts which fixes the shaking problem. In addition, General Motors allegedly issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) which "admitted that drive shafts could be a source of the problem and further admitted that there have been many cases of dented propeller shafts." Even replacing the driveshafts allegedly does no good because the automaker uses the same aluminum driveshafts. In dismissing the nationwide claims, the judge ruled the plaintiff lacked standing because he didn't claim a legal injury in any state other than Florida. However, the judge did allow the Florida class action to continue based on breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. After the nationwide class action lawsuit was trimmed to a Florida case, the parties reached an agreement to mediate the Florida claims on an individual basis. This left the plaintiff and General Motors to settle their arguments and caused Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., to dismiss the Chevy shake lawsuit. The Chevy shake lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami - Weiss, et al., v. General Motors LLC. The plaintiff is represented by Cory Watson, and Migliaccio & Rathod. [GN] GENERALI US: Johner Contract Suit Moved From E.D. Mo. to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KRISTEN JOHNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERALI U.S. BRANCH; CUSTOMIZED SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS, INC. D/B/A CSA TRAVEL PROTECTION & INSURANCE SERVICES D/B/A GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE AND INSURANCE SERVICES, Case No. 4:20-cv-01715, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11088-JGK to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by denying the obligation to pay for trip cancellation losses incurred by the Plaintiff and other policyholders due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Generali U.S. Branch is an insurance company, with its principal place of business located in New York City, New York. Customized Services Administrators, Inc., doing business as CSA Travel Protection and Insurance Services and Generali Global Assistance & Insurance Services, is an insurance broker, with its principal place of business located in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek H. Potts, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP 1901 West 47th Place, Ste. 210 Westwood, KS 66205 Telephone: (816) 931-2230 Facsimile: (816) 931-7030 E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com - and – Dylan H. Potts, Esq. GILL RAGON OWEN, P.A. 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 376-3800 Facsimile: (501) 372-3359 E-mail: potts@gill-law.com GODADDY.COM: Wyttmab Suit Transferred to District of Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled WYTTMAB, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoDaddy.com LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00615, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on December 10, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02394-DJH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is a proposed class action arising from Defendant GoDaddy, Inc.'s regular practice of automatically charging potential customers for Website and Web building services the Plaintiff never agreed to purchase. GoDaddy Inc. is an American publicly traded Internet domain registrar and Web hosting company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and incorporated in Delaware. As of June 2020, GoDaddy has more than 20 million customers and over 7,000 employees worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Y. Brown, Esq. Toby James Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th St., Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: abrown@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Harper S. Seldin, Esq. COZEN OCONNOR 1 Liberty Pl. 1650 Market St., Ste. 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-5590 Facsimile: (215) 665-2013 E-mail: hseldin@cozen.com - and - Sydney R. Hitchcock, Esq. Paula L. Zecchini, Esq. COZEN OCONNOR PC 999 3rd Ave., Ste. 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 373-7292 Facsimile: (206) 455-8236 E-mail: sydneyhitchcock@cozen.com pzecchini@cozen.com GOLDEN PEANUT: Appeals Ruling in Farmers Antitrust Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Golden Peanut Company, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RE PEANUT FARMERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk. On Sept. 5, 2019, the antitrust team at Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed an antitrust lawsuit on behalf of peanut farmers against Golden Peanut and Birdsong. The complaint alleges that Birdsong and Golden Peanut coordinated with one another in violation of antitrust laws to underpay farmers for runner peanuts, the primary type of commercial peanut raised. As a result, peanut farmers have suffered low payments for their crops. The Defendant filed a redacted petition to appeal on motion to seal wherein the court ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion is GRANTED. The clerk shall restrict public access to Docket Nos. 241 and 242 and Plaintiffs shall file correctly redacted public versions of the subject documents. The appellate case is captioned as Golden Peanut Company, LLC v. D&M Farms, Case No. 20-502, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Dec. 17, 2020. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, is represented by: Paul D. Clement, Esq. Erin Elizabeth Murphy, Esq. Julie M.K. Siegal, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com erin.murphy@kirkland.com julie.siegal@kirkland.com - and - Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. Stacy Pepper, Esq. Catie Ventura, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: dlaytin@kirkland.com stacy.pepper@kirkland.com Plaintiffs-Respondents D&M FARMS; MARK HASTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; DUSTIN LAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ROCKY CREEK PEANUT FARMS, LLC; DANIEL HOWELL; and LONNIE GILBERT are represented by: Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. LANTHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 395-8138 E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com - and - William Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Stephanie Chen, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Simeon A. Morbey, Esq. LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com sachen@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com samorbey@locklaw.com - and - Robert Edward Connolly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT CONNOLLY 301 North Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone: (215) 219-4418 E-mail: bob@reconnollylaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C. 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com - and - Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq. Kevin Jerome Funk, Esq. DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC 1111 East Main Street P. O. Box 1463 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-6809 E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com kfunk@dagglaw.com - and - Brian M. Hogan, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. FREED, KANNER, LONDON & MILLEN, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road Bannockburn, IL 60015-0000 Telephone: (224) 632-4510 E-mail: bhogan@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. MUCH, SHELIST, FREED, DENENBERG, AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, PC 191 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-0000 Telephone: (312) 521-2000 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com - and - Stephen Edward Noona, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC P. O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514-3037 Telephone: (757) 624-3239 E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com - and - Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR & LENZ, PC 343 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604-3861 Telephone: (757) 624-3239 E-mail: senoona@kaufcan.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) from September 23, 2020 through November 16, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased GoodRx securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit GoodRx Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of GoodRx common stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The scheme: (1) deceived the investing public regarding GoodRx's business, operations, services, competition, competitive market trends and present and future business prospects; (2) facilitated the Company's September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"); (3) created artificial demand for the GoodRx common shares sold in the IPO; (4) enabled the Company to receive $887 million in net proceeds from the sale of GoodRx common stock in the IPO; (5) enabled certain existing shareholders, including executive officers and Company employees, to collectively reap gross proceeds of more than $369 million from the sale of GoodRx common stock in the IPO; and (6) caused plaintiff and the Class to purchase GoodRx publicly traded common stock at artificially inflated prices. On November 17, 2020, just weeks after GoodRx completed its IPO, Amazon announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program, which, among other things, would compete directly with GoodRx's platform. That same day, CNBC.com reported that Amazon Prime members would now have access to discounts of up to 80% on generic medications and up to 40% on brand-name prescriptions through its relationship with the Inside Rx savings program. This competitive pricing posed a severe threat to GoodRx's business model. On this news, GoodRx's stock price fell $10.51 per share, or 23%, to $36.21 per share by market close on November 17, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased GoodRx securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/goodrxholdingsinc-gdrx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-347/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] GOODRX HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming February 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) Class A common stock between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their GoodRx investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. In September 2020, GoodRx completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling over 39.8 million common shares for $33 per share. GoodRx provides consumers with free information and tools to compare prices for prescription drugs. The Company primarily earns revenue from its prescription transaction fees. On November 17, 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program, that would directly compete with GoodRx's platform. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.51, or 23%, to close at $36.21 per share on November 17, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Amazon had been in the process of developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service; and (2) that Amazon's services would directly replicate and compete with the GoodRx business model. If you purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx Class A common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 16, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini Sues Over False Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ R. BRIAN TERENZINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., DOUGLAS HIRSCH, TREVOR BEZDEK and KARSTEN VOERMANN, Case No. 2:20-cv-11444 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2020) is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of GoodRx Class A common stock between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Defendants: (a) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and (c) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company common stock during the Class period. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for GoodRx common stock. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased GoodRx common stock at the prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by the Defendants' misleading statements. Goodrx Holdings, Inc. is a holding company that owns and operates a U.S. consumer-focused digital healthcare platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Walton, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonfistel.com GP KNIVES LLC: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA -------------------------------------------- GP Knives, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GP Knives, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10813 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). GP KNIVES, LLC is a family-owned and operated business which has served the cutlery and outdoors community since 1994.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com HM PLUMBING LLC: Hormozdi Files Suit in Georgia ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HM Plumbing, LLC. The case is styled as Shireen Hormozdi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HM Plumbing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05177-ELR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HM Plumbing is a plumbing contractor, providing service & repair for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and residential properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Moses Clapp, Esq. Hyslip & Taylor, LLC , LPA -Atl 5 Concourse Parkway, NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30328 Tel: (404) 585-0040 Fax: (404) 510-7477 Email: charles@lawcmc.com HORIZON FREIGHT: California Drivers Class Certified in Nash Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARVIN NASH, Plaintiff v. HORIZON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Nash's motion for class certification, and denied Horizon's motion for a stay without prejudice to renewing the request at a later point. Mr. Nash brought the suit against Horizon on behalf of himself and other truck drivers who contract with Horizon to perform drayage services in California. The contract these drivers must sign, called the Equipment Lease and Service Agreement, classifies them as independent contractors. Nash contends the classification is incorrect because the drivers act as Horizon's employees, entitled to the benefits and protections afforded to employees (but not independent contractors) under California law. After extensive motion practice, three of Nash's claims remain: (1) a claim for reimbursement of business-related expenses under California Labor Code section 2802; (2) a claim for statutory damages based on inaccurate wage statements under California Labor Code section 226; and (3) a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law. Mr. Nash now moves to certify a class of California drivers who contracted with and drove for Horizon from Feb. 22, 2015 to the present. Horizon opposes the class certification, and also moves for a stay pending the outcome of two cases: Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. before the California Supreme Court and California Trucking Association v. Becerra before the Ninth Circuit. Horizon focuses largely on the issue of predominance in its opposition to the class certification. In support of its predominance argument, the company submits nearly identical declarations from 21 California truck drivers who currently have contracts with Horizon. These declarations suggest that the drivers intended to become independent contractors when signing their contracts, and want to retain that status moving forward. Many courts have expressed skepticism about the use of these "happy camper" declarations to defeat a motion for class certification in wage and hour cases. Judge Chhabria finds that Horizon's reliance on these declarations reflects a misunderstanding of the inquiry at the class certification stage. Assuming for current purposes that the case will be governed by the common law test laid out in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989), the relevant question at this stage is whether Horizon's right of control over its carriers, whether great or small is sufficiently uniform to permit classwide assessment. In other words, whether there is a common way to show Horizon possessed essentially the same legal right of control with respect to each of its carriers. The Judge holds that there is a common way to determine the right of control Horizon retained over its drivers: all members of the putative class signed a standard form Lease Agreement specifying the legal rights Horizon retained over them. And even if there are minor variations in the different Lease Agreements used during the class period, Horizon's right of control remained substantively unchanged across the different versions. As part of its predominance argument, Horizon also argues that individual questions about whether truck drivers were engaged in a "distinct occupation or business" makes class certification improper. Several judges have declined to certify proposed classes of drivers based on their conclusion that individualized inquiries under this "distinct occupation or business" factor defeated predominance. Horizon raises some of the same issues in arguing that Nash is not an adequate class representative. But for the reasons already explained, the declarations submitted by Horizon and signed by current drivers purporting to embrace their status as independent contractors do not create a conflict of interest that would render Nash an inadequate class representative. Moreover, Nash can adequately pursue the expense reimbursement claim on behalf of the proposed class. Although Nash's deposition testimony about the specifics of his reimbursement claim was not always clear, he sufficiently articulated that he intended to seek reimbursement for costs incurred to drive for Horizon. His testimony was not inherently incredible or dishonest, nor does it reflect a misunderstanding about his duties as a class representative. Based on the foregoing, Judge Chhabria granted Nash's motion to certify a class of California drivers who contracted with and drove for Horizon from Feb. 22, 2015 to the present. He denied Horizon's motion to stay without prejudice to renewing the request when the issues in the cases pending before the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit are more immediately relevant to the issues in the case. He also granted the requests for judicial notice. The Judge denied Horizon's motion to seal on the ground that it's grossly overbroad. The denial is without prejudice to filing a more narrowly tailored motion within 14 days of the date of the Order. If no such motion is filed, the exhibit will simply be unsealed. A further case management conference to set the schedule for the remainder of the case will take place on Feb. 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. via zoom. A joint case management statement is due one week in advance of the conference. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwgzlj3 from Leagle.com. HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Payne Class Suit Moved to District of Columbia ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISIAH PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. RDB-20-1314 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court also granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. Plaintiff Payne has brought the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Defendant Howard, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Specifically, he claims Howard is liable for retaining the full amount of tuition and fees it collected for the spring semester of 2020 despite ceasing in-person instruction in response to the spread of the COVID-19 virus. On March 16, 2020, Howard's President Wayne A.I. Frederick, M.D., MBA, announced that the school was suspending face-to-face instruction of courses at Howard University for the remainder of the Spring 2020 Semester and that courses would transition to remote and online instruction following the scheduled Spring Break. Howard has not held any in-person classes since March 13, 2020. Therefore, Payne claims, the university has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that he and the putative class contracted and paid for. He alleges that he paid approximately $12,483 in tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 Semester. The Plaintiff seeks for himself and others similarly situated Howard's disgorgement of the pro-rated portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained of the Spring 2020 Semester when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided. He alleges that the remote learning options "are in no way the equivalent" of the school's typical in-person education, and that the online education encompasses an entirely different experience than the one described on Howard's website and in its course catalog. Mr. Payne filed suit in the Court on May 27, 2020. On Aug. 31, 2020, the Defendant Howard filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief, or in the alternative, that the case should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Without filing a response to that initial motion, Payne filed an Amended Complaint on Sept. 21, 2020. On Oct. 5, 2020, the Defendant again responded seeking dismissal or, in the alternative, transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Bennett opines that the alleged contract between Howard and Payne was to be performed in the District of Columbia, and that is where Howard allegedly unlawfully retained Payne's funds. Accordingly, Payne could have brought his case in the District of Columbia. Having determined that a case could have been brought in the transferee forum, a court must proceed to determine if transfer is appropriate in the instant case. When considering a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Court must consider the following factors: (1) the weight accorded to the plaintiff's choice of venue, (2) witness convenience and access, (3) convenience of the parties, and (4) the interest of justice. In the case, Judge Bennett holds taht a balancing of these factors weighs in favor of transfer. First, Howard's purported acts or omissions in educating students during the pandemic, and its allegedly improper retention of Payne's tuition and fees, took place in the District of Columbia, not Maryland. Second, the location of the majority of the witnesses and the evidence in the case is Washington, D.C. Lastly, the District of Columbia has a far greater interest than Maryland in adjudicating claims that one of its premier educational institutions breached a contract when it sought to comply with the Orders of Mayor Muriel Bowser of the District of Columbia issued in the face of a global pandemic. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bennett granted in part and denied in part Defendant Howard's Motion. Specifically, he denied the Motion in part with respect to seeking dismissal of the action, but granted it in part with respect to Transfer of Venue. Accordingly, the case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. All pending arguments, including the Defendant's arguments for dismissal for failure to state a claim, will remain pending for disposition in that Court. The Defendant's previous Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cl5ewt from Leagle.com. INFINITY DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Two Class Actions Over Fake COVID Tests ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Alexander, writing for New Jersey 101.5, reports that two class-action lawsuit have been filed against Teterboro-based Infinity Diagnostics Labs, a company that sold kits that promised rapid coronavirus test results that were actually antibody tests, according to the lawsuits. The FBI raided the company's office in Ventnor City in early December and advised customers who were tested using a finger prick blood test to be retested. No explanation was given but the FBI cited the Food and Drug Administration's website as saying "rapid" finger prick blood tests are only antibody tests and should not be used for diagnosing active cases of coronavirus. Only a test that uses a nasal swab or saliva should be used to diagnose active cases of COVID-19, according to the FDA. The FBI on Dec. 29 told New Jersey 101.5 it had no additional information about its investigation into Infinity Diagnostics, including how many people took the false test. "As a result of the deceptive and misleading sales practices described herein, thousands of frightened and desperate people have had $75 stolen from them under false pretenses and have now been told by an agency of the federal government that they should be retested," the lawsuit states. At least four people who paid for the $75 tests are part of the suit filed on Dec. 15 in Superior Court in Atlantic County. Among them is Philip Naylor, of Egg Harbor Township, who bought 60 tests for employees responsible for sanitizing Atlantic City International Airport and the county's Air National Guard base. Thomas and Bonnie Young, of Galloway, took the test after Thanksgiving dinner with their daughter, who later revealed the next day she had tested positive for coronavirus, according to the lawsuit. Thomas is a bus driver and was required to take a test for his job. The couple watches their 5-year-old grandchild twice a week. "Infinity knowingly put people at risk by giving them a false sense of security that they were negative for COVID-19 at the time of testing, when in fact, those same persons could have been infected and contagious, potentially killing their friends and family," according to the lawsuit. The suit seeks for Infinity to refund the cost of the fake tests and to pay for re-testing. Another class-action suit was filed against Infinity by Evan Bell, of the Mays Landing section of Hamilton in Atlantic County, accuses the company of violating New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Infinity Diagnostics did not return New Jersey 101.5's request for comment on Dec. 29. [GN] INSIGHT VENTURE: Colacurcio WSSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIS PATRICK COLACURCIO, DAVID HANSON, and JAMES McMURCHIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS VII, L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS (CAYMAN) VII, L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS VII (CO-INVESTORS), L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS (DELAWARE) VII, L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS COINVESTMENT FUND II, L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE ASSOCIATES VII, L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE ASSOCIATES VII, LTD.; INSIGHT VENTURE ASSOCIATES COINVESTMENT II, L.P.; INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT, LLC; INSIGHT HOLDING GROUP, LLC, and RYAN HINKLE, Case No. 19-2-33469-0 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01856 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA), breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment by failing to disclose material facts concerning a tender offer in June 2017 to purchase stock in Smartsheet, Inc. Insight Venture Partners VII, L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm located in the Cayman Islands. Insight Venture Partners (Cayman) L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in the Cayman Islands. Insight Venture Partners VII (Co-Investors), L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in the Cayman Islands. Insight Venture Partners (Delaware) VII, L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in Delaware. Insight Ventures Partners Co-Investment Fund II, L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in Delaware. Insight Venture Associates VII, L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in the Cayman Islands. Insight Venture Associates VII, Ltd. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in the Cayman Islands. Insight Venture Associates Co-Investment II, L.P. is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in Delaware. Insight Venture Management, LLC is a private equity and venture capital firm, with its principal place of business in New York City, New York. Insight Holding Group, LLC is an investment management firm, with its principal place of business in New York City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. John A. Tondini, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com jtondini@byrneskeller.com - and – Jeffrey B. Korn, Esq. Charles D. Cording, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019-6099 Telephone: (282) 728-8000 E-mail: jkorn@willkie.com ccording@willkie.com INTERFACE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of January 11 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:TILE) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Mar. 2, 2018 - Sept. 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 11, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TILE Contact An Attorney Now: TILE@hbsslaw.com | 844-916-0895 Interface, Inc. (TILE) Securities Class Action: The lawsuit centers on Interface's disclosures of its financial results, including its accounting for certain expenses such as management bonus accruals, independent consultant fees and stock-based compensation. According to the complaint, Interface and senior management repeatedly pleased investors when it reported income and earnings per share growth, consistently meeting or exceeding analysts' estimates and assured them that the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were effective. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on Apr. 24, 2019, when Interface announced that the SEC had served three separate subpoenas on the Company probing its earnings per share calculations from 2014 - 2017. The Company also announced that it had placed its Chief Accounting Officer Gregory Bauer on administrative leave when it learned Bauer added notes to materials produced to the SEC. Yet, the Company and senior management maintained they had cooperated with the SEC investigation since its inception. Then, on Sept. 28, 2020, the SEC filed a settled action against the Company for securities law violations, finding that (1) during Q2 2015 through Q2 2016 Interface made unsupported manual accounting adjustments to certain expenses to meet EPS estimates, (2) Bauer, and former Chief Financial Officer (Patrick Lynch) directed the unsupported entries, and (3) Interface impeded the SEC's investigation. These disclosures drove the price of Interface shares down sharply. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Interface and senior management intentionally misled investors through illegal earnings smoothing," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are an Interface investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Interface should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email TILE@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] INTERFACE INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of January 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the "Company") (NYSE: TILE) securities during the period from March 2, 2018 through September 28, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 11, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls, procedures, and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface, inter alia, reported artificially inflated income and earnings per share ("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") with respect to the foregoing issues since at least as early as November 2017, had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope of the Company's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC investigation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that Interface "received a letter in November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS] calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017"; that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of 2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal investigation into these and other related issues for seven quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017." On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or approximately 8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019. Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5 million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how, inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce documents in response to Commission investigative requests that were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's investigation began. On this news, Interface's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or approximately 3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18 per share on September 29, 2020. If you acquired Interface securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] JOYY INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against JOYY Inc., ("JOYY" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:YY) for violations of Sec10(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 April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before January 19, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/389m59v 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. JOYY dramatically overstated the revenues of its live-streaming business. The majority of the Company's users were bots, which it used in a roundtripping scheme to produce fake revenues. The Company overstated its cash reserves. The Company's acquisition of Bigo was a scheme to benefit insiders. 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 JOYY, 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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] K12 INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 19 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of K12 Inc., ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN) between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased K12 securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit K12 Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) K12 lacked the technological capabilities, infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic; (2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents; (4) and K12's officers lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On August 26, 2020, reports emerged that K12's training for teachers in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, one of the largest school districts in the country, had been ineffective and unacceptable. On this news, K12's shares fell by 7% over the course of two trading days. When classes in Miami-Dade started on August 31, 2020, K12's platform experienced major technical issues, disruptions, and a series of cyberattacks. In response, the district's superintendent revealed that the district had never executed its $15.3 million contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12 shares fell by 10.5% over the course of two trading days. A week later the Miami-Dade County Public School's Board voted to terminate their contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12 common shares once again fell drastically, by 11.5% to close at $30.55 on September 10, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased K12 securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/k12inc-lrn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-333/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] K12 INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 29 disclosed that purchasers of K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN) securities between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until January 19, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the K12 securities class action lawsuit, Lee v. K12 Inc., No. 20-cv-01419 (E.D. Va.), which is pending before Judge Liam O'Grady. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased K12 securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the K12 class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the K12 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the K12 class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the K12 class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the K12 class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the K12 class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the K12 class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January 19, 2021. K12 is a technology-based education company that provides proprietary and third-party educational curriculum, teacher training, administrative support, information technology support, software systems, and educational services. Beginning in March 2020, the global pandemic forced school districts across the country to close in-class instruction and shift all learning activities to online and blended instruction. K12 saw a unique opportunity to revamp itself by seizing a large stake in the rapidly growing market for online education. The K12 class action lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) K12 lacked the technological capabilities, infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic; (ii) K12 lacked adequate cyber-attack protocols and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about K12's business, operations, and prospects. On August 26, 2020, teachers in the Miami-Dade County School District reported that the training provided by K12 was ineffective and "unacceptable," as they lacked the necessary instruction to utilize K12's platform. On this news, the price of K12 common shares allegedly fell by 7% over the course of two trading days. By the third day of classes, September 2, 2020, Miami-Dade County students and teachers reported numerous additional technical issues and a total of twelve intermittent cyber-attacks that led to K12's learning platform being effectively dysfunctional. In response, the Miami-Dade County School District called a Board meeting to discuss K12's many failures. During the meeting, Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho revealed that he had never signed the $15.3 million no-bid contract with K12 and the school district had never paid K12 for the provision of its services and products. On this news, the price of K12 common shares allegedly fell more than 10% over the course of two trading days. A week later, after another Board meeting that lasted over 13 hours and included 400 speakers, the Miami-Dade County Public School Board voted to terminate its $15.3 million contract with K12 on September 10, 2020. On this news, the price of K12 common shares allegedly fell more than 11%. Finally, Beaufort County School District board member John Dowling stated that he had lost confidence in K12's ability to provide educational solutions for the district and, on September 17, 2020, moved to terminate the district's contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12 common shares allegedly fell nearly 5%, further damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900 jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN] KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment -------------------------------------------------------------- 6KFDM reports that on the morning of October 29, 2020, a Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) train derailed in Mauriceville, Texas. The derailed cars included 15 loaded with potentially highly toxic and flammable materials. As a result, a large area totaling several square miles around the derailed train was evacuated. Power outages were widespread, impacting thousands of area residents. Several evacuation protocols remained in place for a number of days and caused a significant amount of economic loss to the community. Businesses were forced to close. Schools were forced to close. Parents were stranded from work with no one to care for many of the displaced students. Residents of the area were forced to leave and find accommodations elsewhere, many at hotels already packed with contractors and evacuees from the hurricanes that had already devastated the area in the preceding months. The derailment caused several million dollars of economic loss to the area. As the vast majority of those impacted had losses measured in the hundreds or few thousands of dollars each, the costs associated with bringing a lawsuit for those damages would normally be financially prohibitive. Therefore, the case will be pursued through a class action lawsuit, which will allow all those harmed from the incident to be able to bring their claims together in a single lawsuit. A number of the businesses and residents of the area have retained the law firm of Brent Coon and Associates (BCA) to handle this matter, and the class action suit was filed with the Orange County State District Court on December 29, 2020. While the Brent Coon and Associates Law Firm has a home office in neighboring Beaumont, Texas, it also has a number of other litigation offices around the country, and has been involved in many well-known and highly publicized cases over the years involving oil spills, refinery explosions, and other catastrophic cases. The work of the firm has resulted in Congressional and state legislative involvement to enhance safety and health considerations in the workplace. BCA also retained the well-regarded class action specialist John Fabry and The Carlson Law Firm, based in Round Rock, as co-counsel. "As a public policy and safety law firm, we are involved in high profile cases literally all over the world," stated Brent Coon. "It is refreshing to be able to handle another serious legal matter right here in our own backyard. We coincidentally found ourselves back in Orange County just a few months ago as one of the lead counsel firms on the TPC explosion case in Port Neches, which was transferred from Jefferson County to Orange Texas by the Texas Supreme Court. I grew up about 10 miles from where this derailment took place, so I am very familiar with how a derailment in this area would impact the local community. This is primarily a hard- working blue-collar area and a few thousand dollars in losses to area residents and business owners is a very serious amount in each of their pocketbooks. It is admirable that some of the clients were willing to step out front and be the class representatives in this case, and hopefully we will be able to work with KCS to reach an amicable resolution to the case soon," says Coon, lead counsel on the case. Attorney John Fabry added, "The Class Action is a legal tool to help level the playing field between the individual and a large corporation such as KCS. These actions provide a more efficient way for the judicial system to conduct litigation for similarly situated individuals, eliminating the need to relitigate common issues in a large number of individual cases. The effectiveness of Class Actions in helping individuals to hold large corporations accountable for their conduct is probably why they have been under almost constant attack by business interests." "At this unique time when most Americans are facing grave health and financial insecurity due to the global pandemic, the negligent conduct of Kansas City Southern makes the situation worse for the residents of Orange, Texas" Brent Coon concluded, "At the end of the day, as a public policy law firm, we hope to not only achieve fair restitution to those impacted from the derailment, but to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future. Many of these derailments occur because the railroad companies do not adequately maintain the tracks. Over 10,000 derailments of some form occur annually, the majority of them associated to maintenance and budgetary issues within the railroad industry. While it is bad enough for a load of grain to spill in a derailment in an isolated farming area, this region services the petro-chemical industry, and a tremendous amount of highly toxic and explosive chemicals are transported every day in and out of local ports, plants, and terminals. We will push the Federal Railroad Administration to improve scrutiny and inspection of these high risk zones to reduce the likelihood of future mishaps like this, as some could have widespread and fatal consequences. In this case, the monoethanolamine (MEA) that spilled in the derailment of some of the tank cars is a known toxin, and long term effects have not been conclusively studied. A full cleanup, decontamination, and remediation of the impacted areas is a very important step in re-establishing a safe environment to that area, and stricter oversight would reduce the risk of future incidents." [GN] KING'S HAWAIIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Sweet Rolls Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ HawaiiNewsNow reports that contrary to popular belief, King's Hawaiian sweet rolls are not actually made in Hawaii. And now, a New York resident is suing the makers, claiming that he was misled into buying the rolls. In the class action lawsuit, Robert Galinsky, the plaintiff, said the back label notes that the popular bread product is manufactured in Torrance, Calif. But Galinsky said the front packaging prominently features "Hilo, Hawaii," leading people to believe that the bread is actually from there. Galinsky said in the lawsuit that King's Hawaiian "is the leading seller of Hawaiian Rolls and essentially invented this category of food." He lists other lawsuits that King's Hawaiian Holding Company filed against competitors to prevent the marketing of "Hawaiian Rolls." According to its website, King's Hawaiian's history dates back to the 1950s, when Robert Taira first opened the business in Hilo Robert's Bakery. It later expanded to Honolulu, where it was renamed King's Bakery. Eventually, the business moved to Torrance, Calif. as King's Hawaiian Bakery continues to wholesale its famous sweet bread nationwide. This is not the first time a company is facing a lawsuit over Hawaii representations. Kona Brewing and Hawaiian Host have also been sued for similar reasons. Hawaii News Now has reached out to King's Hawaiian for comment but has not heard back. [GN] KINGS COUNTY: Skaller Sues Over Failed County Committee Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH SKALLER, AKEL WILLIAMS, JANICE HENDERSON, HARRIET HINES, DAVID STEIN, NAOMI RABEEYA, DAVID GOLDBERG, and ELANA EHRENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KINGS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COUNTY COMMITTEE, Defendant, Case No. 526141/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., December 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 2-112 and 2-118 of the Election Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to hold a timely, fair, transparent, functional meeting that allowed full participation of County Committee members. The Defendant's failure amounts to a violation of the Supreme Court of the State of New York's order in Ellington case to hold a County Committee meeting pursuant to Election Law Section 2-112 and set up a virtual meeting. Furthermore, the Defendant failed to allow nominations from the floor to fill vacancies in the County Committee. The cumulative result of these actions is that it denied the County Committee from being able to meaningfully participate in the process to fill the vacancies to the County Committee. The Kings County Democratic County Committee is a political party recognized as the official organization of the Democratic Party of the State of New York with offices at 16 Court Street, Suite 1016, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ali Najmi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ALI NAJMI 261 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (718) 637-7707 E-mail: ali@najmilaw.com KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of California, and trial is currently set for November 8, 2021. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations. Kirkland’s denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. The parties are currently engaging in discovery, and the Plaintiff has until April 9, 2021, to file for class certification. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in the United States. The company's stores provide various merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture, ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps, decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items. Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. KYOCERA CORP: Faces Kahn Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN KAHN, Plaintiff v. DONALD B. CHRISTIANSEN, JOHN BALLATO, DAVID DECENZO, JOHN SARVIS, GORO YAMAGUCHI, SHOICHI AOKI, HIROSHI FURE, KOICHI KANO, HIDEO TANIMOTO, and KYOCERA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2020-1046 (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 10, 2020) is a stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of AVX Corporation's former public minority stockholders, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's board of directors and its controlling stockholder, Kyocera Corporation, in connection with Kyocera's acquisition of the public minority interest in the Company via a public tender offer for $21.75 cash per share, which closed on March 30, 2020. According to the complaint, the buyout's unfair price is the result of an unfair process dictated entirely by Kyocera. Kyocera "negotiated" with a conflicted special committee of the Board, refused a majority-of-the-minority provision, and ensured the special committee's banker would deem its proposed buyout price "fair" by manipulating the Company's financial projections downward. The complaint further asserts that both the Board and Kyocera, as AVX's controlling stockholder, had a fiduciary duty to ensure that the process leading up to the buyout and the agreed-upon consideration were fair to AVX's public stockholders. The Board and Kyocera breached these fiduciary duties, and the Defendants now cannot meet their burden to show that the buyout process and the buyout price were entirely fair to AVX's public stockholders. Having failed to seek, let alone obtain, majority-of-the-minority approval and failed to ensure that a truly independent special committee oversaw the sales process, the Defendants cannot shift this burden back to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was a continuous owner of 200 shares of AVX common stock from December 31, 2008, through the completion of the buyout on March 30, 2020. Kyocera Corporation is a Japanese multinational ceramics and electronics manufacturer headquartered in Kyoto, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Vivek Upadhya, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 - and - James S. Notis, Esq. Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 905-0509 - and - Harold B. Obstfeld, Esq. HAROLD B. OBSTFELD, P.C. 140 E 45th Street, 44th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 696-1212 LEE'S 4 COCKTAILS: Ruckman Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bartenders ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA RUCKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEE'S 4 COCKTAILS INC.; JENNIFER KELLEY; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV49522 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to pay wages when employment ends, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff worked as a bartender at Lee's 4 Cocktails bar in Northridge, California in or around 2004 or 2005 until December 28, 2019. Lee's 4 Cocktails Inc. is an owner and operator of Lee's 4 Cocktails bar located at 17040 Devonshire St., Northridge, 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 LEWIS BROTHERS: Fails to Provide Health Insurance, Caldwell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES, INC., and LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES INCORPORATED OF TENNESSEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01081 (M.D. Tenn., December 18, 2020) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Roughly 4 to 5 years ago, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid "merchandiser" under multiple, different names and/or aliases as required by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant erroneously denied him and other similarly situated employees of health insurance benefits by its unlawful scheme of requiring, suffering, and/or permitting them to work under multiple, different names and/or aliases. Because the Defendants' ERISA Plan requires that only full-time employees are qualified to participate in and receive health insurance coverage, the Defendants purposely did not allow the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work more than 28 hours each week so they could not be allowed to be classified as "full time" employees, and thus, they could not be entitled to benefits under the ERISA plan. This is to avoid the costs associated with providing health insurance to its full-time employees in compliance with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became law requiring that insurance coverage provided by covered employers must be affordable and provide a minimum value or the employers may liable for penalty. The Corporate Defendants own and operate bakeries in Evansville, Indiana; LaPorte, Indiana; Ft. Wayne, Indiana; Vincennes, Indiana; and Murfreesboro, Tennessee that provide fresh bakery products in 17 states, which product lines are marketed under a number of well-known brands, such as Lewis Bake Shop and Bunny Bread. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com - and – Nina Parsley, Esq. PONCE LAW 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com LIMA ONE CAPITAL: Adrlassist Files Suit in Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lima One Capital, LLC. The case is styled as Adr1assist, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lima One Capital, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05184-SDG (N.D. Ga., Dec. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract. Lima One Capital is a lender for residential real estate investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory John Bosseler, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, PLLC - Atl 191 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30306 Tel: (239) 433-6880 Email: gbosseler@forthepeople.com LINENS AND HUTCH: Angeles Asserts Breach of ADA ----------------------------------------------- Linens and Hutch, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Linens and Hutch, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10817 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). Linens and Hutch, LLC offers bedding products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LVNV FUNDING: Granted Leave to Amend Answers to Shaughnessy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GRADY SHAUGHNESSY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1809-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Sana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies Shaughnessy's motion to strike portions of the Defendants' Answers to the Complaint, and grants the Defendants' request for leave to amend. On Aug. 11, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, alleging violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Act. On Sept. 14, 2020, the Defendants removed the action to the Court. On Sept. 21, 2020, they each filed an Answer to the Complaint. Both Answers assert the following affirmative defenses: (1) Cal. Civ. Code Section 1785.25(g), (2) failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (3) statute of limitations, (4) contributory negligence, (5) failure to mitigate, (6) estoppel, (7) laches, (8) unclean hands, (9) waiver, (10) good faith, (11) failure to state a claim, (12) conduct of third parties, and (13) reservation of the right to assert additional affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff filed the present motion on Oct. 13, 2020. The Plaintiff argues certain defenses are not affirmative defenses, and others fail to give fair notice of the nature of the defense. The Defendants contend their defenses raise disputed questions of fact and law and thus should not be stricken. They further request leave to amend the Answers, stating they intended to file Amended Answers pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), but failed to do so within the 21-day time period. In opposition to the Defendants' request for leave to amend, the Plaintiff argues the Defendants did not comply with the Civil Local Rules governing motions, including motions to amend. The Defendants filed Amended Answers at the same time as they filed their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, despite being outside of the 21-day window to amend, and counter-moved to amend in response to the Plaintiff's motion, rather than filing a separate motion. Judge Sabraw notes the Plaintiff's argument but declines to deny the Defendants' counter-motion on this basis. However, she directs the parties to comply with the Local Rules moving forward in this case. She finds that the present issues are best resolved by granting the Defendants leave to amend. Even if a party does not amend its pleading within the 21-day time period prescribed by Rule 15(a)(1), the court "should freely give leave" to amend "when justice so requires." Granting the Defendants leave to amend will give them the opportunity to cure the purported defects alleged in the Plaintiff's motion to strike. Moreover, the Plaintiff does not assert that granting leave to amend would result in prejudice. Although granting leave to amend will render the Plaintiff's pending motion to strike moot, the Plaintiff may renew the motion if he chooses to do so. Thus, the Plaintiff has not shown he would be prejudiced by the Defendants' proposed amendments. Indeed, even if the Judge were to grant the Plaintiff's motion to strike, leave to amend would likely be given. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, Judge Sabraw grants the Defendants' request for leave to amend their Answers and denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8yccmyw from Leagle.com. MAPLEBEAR INC: Albert Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maplebear, Inc. The case is styled as Josh Albert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Maplebear, Inc. (d/b/a Instacart), Case No. CGC20588425 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is filed on behalf of non-exempt employees. A case management conference is set for May 12, 2021 before Judge Samuel K. Feng. Instacart is an American company that operates a grocery delivery and pick-up service in the United States and Canada. The company offers its services via a website and mobile app. The service allows customers to order groceries from participating retailers with the shopping being done by a personal shopper. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 MCDONALD'S CORP: Class-Action Lawsuit Grows to Nearly 80 Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Johnson at Chicago Crusader reports that a class action lawsuit against McDonald's has ballooned to nearly 80 plaintiffs, after 27 Black former franchisees filed their complaints this month in federal court in Chicago. The new amended complaint now has 77 named plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed by 52 Black former franchisees on September 1, 2020. The claims now include nearly 300 fast food McDonald's franchises with compensatory damages that average between $4 million and $5 million per store, exclusive of punitive damages. Many of the new plaintiffs are Black former franchisees who owned McDonald's restaurants in Florida. On December 18, in a separate lawsuit, two additional former Black franchisees, James Byrd Jr. and Darrell Byrd, two brothers who own and operate four McDonald's in the Nashville, Tennessee, area, filed a lawsuit against McDonald's. The complaint says that the Nashville region has "the highest cash flow disparity between white and Black McDonald's franchisees in the nation." And on October 29, another separate, federal class action lawsuit was filed against McDonald's by current Black franchisees. There are 14 Black franchisees in Florida, four of whom own McDonald's restaurants in Hialeah, Homestead and Lauderhill locations. But the class action lawsuit involving 77 plaintiffs continues to grow. In the latest filing, 27 former franchisees make similar allegations that accuse McDonald's of selling itself as a recruiter and developer of Black talent, while profiting from its Black consumer bases as it maintained a two-tier system that pigeonholed unsuspecting Black franchisees and assigned them bad locations that were guaranteed to fail. According to the amended lawsuit, plaintiff Jeffery Rogers is a former Jacksonville region McDonald's franchise owner and operator who became a franchisee in 2005 before he was allegedly forced out in 2011. Rogers owned and lost one store. Another plaintiff, Douglas Hollis and his wife, Glenna Hollis, lost five McDonald's franchisees in 2013 in the Orlando region after they started their enterprise in 1998. The new plaintiffs say their average annual sales of $2 million was more than $700,000 under McDonald's national average of $2.7 million between 2011 and 2016, and $900,000 under the national average of $2.9 million in 2019. The lawsuit also claims that McDonald's was ruthless in steering Black operators toward the oldest and toughest neighborhoods that were often rejected by white franchisees. The plaintiffs allege the practice severely limited their opportunities for expansion and growth, and led to low cash flow, decreased equity, debt, bankruptcy and financial ruin. The new plaintiffs argue McDonald's violated federal civil rights laws by: Excluding Black franchisees from the same growth opportunities found at safer, higher-volume, lower-cost stores offered to whites. Retaliating against Black franchisees for rejecting strong-arm offers to continue operations in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Denying Black franchisees meaningful assistance during financial hardships, while white franchisees were routinely given such support. Failing to provide any legitimate business reasons for repeated denials of franchise opportunities over many years. Unfairly grading the operations of Black restaurants, which resulted in poor internal reviews, effectively pushing Black franchisees out of the McDonald's system by denying them the eligibility for growth and favorable franchise terms. Providing misleading projections, which induced Black franchisees to purchase undesirable franchises. McDonald's has denied the allegations. In the original lawsuit filed in September, Black operators also alleged that they faced retaliation from McDonald's after they rejected offers to continue running their restaurants in low-income neighborhoods. The plaintiffs also allege that McDonald's provided misleading projections that persuaded them to buy undesirable franchises and denied them better locations typically given to white franchisees, who operated safer restaurants with higher sales and lower security costs. According to the National Black McDonald's Operators Association (NBMOA), McDonald's at one point had as many as 377 Black franchisees in 1998. Today there are only 186, even though McDonald's has increased its stores from 15,086 to 36,059. The cash flow gap for Black franchisees more than tripled from 2010 to 2019, according to the NBMOA. The suit comes on the heels of a separate federal class action lawsuit filed October 29 by current Black franchisees. That same month, three current and former McDonald's workers filed a civil rights suit accusing managers at a local McDonald's of subjecting Black workers to racially derogatory terms and disparate treatment that resulted in them receiving harsher discipline, and fewer hours, than white colleagues. In a separate lawsuit in January, two Black executives at McDonald's filed a lawsuit accusing the fast-food chain of discrimination and removing many Black employees from its top ranks. But the class action lawsuit involving 77 plaintiffs details practices that occurred for many years and threatened to cost McDonald's hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. In November, McDonald's hired Reggie Miller as its vice president and global chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer. He will replace Wendy Lewis, who last summer announced that she was retiring this year. [GN] MCKESSON CORPORATION: Shepard Sues Over Baby's Exposure to Opioids ------------------------------------------------------------------ JERICA SHEPARD, AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF BABY E.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02864 (N.D. Ohio, December 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for products liability and negligence in violations of the Indiana Products Liability Act and deceptive consumer sales, civil conspiracy, and breach of express warranty in violations of the Deceptive Consumers Sales Act. The Plaintiff brings this class suit against the Defendants to seek relief for economic damages that she incurred and continues to incur related to the care of her child who sustained injury as a result of exposure to opioids in utero. The Plaintiff was prescribed with the Defendants' opioids prior to gestation, resulting in her opioid dependencies/addictions. Defendant Manufacturers misrepresented the efficacy and safety of their products to the point that they caused addiction. Meanwhile, Defendant Pharmacies failed to alert the authorities about questionable orders and abuses as well as failed to take action to avoid the adverse consequences of those orders and abuses. McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology, medical supplies, and care management tools, headquartered in Irving, Texas. Cardinal Health, Inc. is an American multinational health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio. AmerisourceBergen Corporation is a pharmaceutical company based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is an American-Israeli pharmaceutical company, with dual headquarters in Petah Tikva, Israel and Parsippany, New Jersey. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of generic pharmaceutical products based in Pennsylvania. Cephalon, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Frazer, Pennsylvania. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company based in Pennsylvania. Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Allergan PLC, formerly known as Actavis PLC, is an American, Irish-domiciled pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc., is a manufacturer and distributor of pharmaceutical products based in Madison, New Jersey. Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Corona, California. Actavis LLC is a pharmaceutical company based in Madison, New Jersey. Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as Watson Pharma Inc., is a manufacturer of generic pharmaceutical products based in Parsippany, New Jersey. Depomed, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company based in California. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical company based in New York. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical company based in New York. Noramco, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Athens, Georgia. Indivior, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Virginia. CVS Health Corporation is an American healthcare company based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Rite Aid Corp. is an American drugstore chain based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a drugstore chain based in Deerfield, Illinois. Walgreen Eastern Co. is a retailer of pharmaceutical products based in Maine. Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store chain, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. Wal-Mart Inc., formerly known as Walmart Stores, Inc., is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Miami-Luken, Inc. is a wholesaler of pharmaceutical products based in Springboro, Ohio. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs, headquartered in Washington. H.D. Smith, LLC is a distributor of pharmaceutical products based in Pennsylvania. H.D. Smith Holdings, LLC is a distributor of pharmaceutical products based in Pennsylvania. H.D. Smith Holding Company is a distributor of pharmaceutical products based in Pennsylvania. Anda, Inc. is a distributor of pharmaceutical products based in Weston, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Spencer R. Doody, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-9065 Facsimile: (504) 581-7635 E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com - and – Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stephen Wussow, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399-0009 Facsimile: (504) 309-6989 E-mail: cbrustowicz@clfnola.com - and – Donald E. Creadore, Esq. CREADORE LAW FIRM 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 355-7200 E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com - and – Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A. 242 Northeast 27th Street Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 532-0500 Facsimile: (305) 531-0150 E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com ereyes@khrlawoffices.com assistant@khrlawoffices.com - and – Kevin Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY, PLLC 2030 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV Telephone: (304) 343-4401 E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com MDL 2972: 8 Blackbaud Data Breach Litig. Moved to South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2972, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring eight actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge J. Michelle Childs for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff William Allen in Case No. 20-cv-02930 (December 3, 2020, D.S.C), represented by Whitfield Bryson LLP moved under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation. The litigation consists of actions pending in four districts of California, Florida, South Carolina and New York. Blackbaud, through counsel, supports centralization in the said District. In May 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 including user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords and health information. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary, the Panel says. A full-text copy of the Panel's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3b4dlmZ MDL 2973: 63 Elmiron Product Liability Suits Transferred to N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re: Elmiron Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2973, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring 63 actions pending in 11 districts to the U.S. District for the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Brian R. Martinotti for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The litigation consists of 63 actions including those involving retinal injuries pending in 11 districts in Alabama, California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in Dobbins, et al. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:20-09530, in the District of New Jersey, move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation involving retinal injuries associated with the use of Elmiron (pentosan polysulfate sodium) in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff's motion included 63 actions pending in 11 districts as well as 65 potentially-related actions. No responding party opposes centralization. Plaintiffs in 42 actions support centralization in the District of New Jersey. Certain of these plaintiffs propose alternative transferee districts of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or the Southern District of Florida. Responding plaintiffs in 33 cases support centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in the Southern District of Ohio Gruppo action support centralization in the Southern District of Ohio. Defendants do not oppose centralization in the District of New Jersey. Defendants are Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer US LLC., Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., IVAX LLC, Baker Norton U.S., Inc. and Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Pentosan Polysulfate Sodium or "Elmiron," medication used for interstitial cystitis and osteoarthritis, allegedly causes retinal injuries, notably atypical or pigmentary maculopathy. Several defendants have marketed Elmiron since its approval in 1996. This litigation likely will implicate complex scientific and regulatory issues. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary, the Panel says. A full-text copy of the JPML's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/3b49hTT MDL 2974: 55 IUD Product Liability Suits Transferred to M.D. Ga. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2974, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring 55 actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Leigh Martin May for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs, in an action pending in the Central District of California, moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district, or, in the alternative, the Northern District of Georgia, the Western District of Missouri, or the Eastern District of Louisiana. The litigation consists of 55 actions pending in 31 districts of Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North and South Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Liaison Counsel for the Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women's Health, Inc., Teva Women's Health, LLC, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc., submitted a joint response in opposition to centralization -- but argued for centralization in the Southern District of New York or, in the alternative, the Middle District of Florida or the Southern District of California in case these actions are consolidated. These actions allege the Paragard intrauterine device (IUD) has a propensity to break upon removal, causing complications and injuries, including surgeries to remove the broken piece of the device, infertility, and pain. The actions thus implicate questions concerning the device's development, manufacture, testing, labeling and marketing. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. A full-text copy of the Panel's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is available at bit.ly/3rPfSr7 METLANG LLC: Leopoldo Files Suit in California ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metlang LLC. The case is styled as Ordaz Leopoldo, as individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Metlang LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-09053 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2020). The docket states the type of case as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. Metlang LLC is located in Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States and is part of the Professional Services Sector Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W Lee, Esq. Diversity Law Group 515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Can't Compel Arbitration in Madlinger FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICIA MADLINGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-21183 (MAS) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The case arises out of the Plaintiff's credit card account with Credit One Bank. N.A. At some time prior to Dec. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt to Credit One following a credit card transaction for personal, family, or household purposes. The Plaintiff asserts that, also prior to Dec. 7, 2018, Credit One either directly or through intermediate transactions assigned, placed, or transferred the Plaintiff's credit card debt to the Defendant for collection. At the time the credit card debt was assigned, placed, or transferred to the Defendant, the debt was in default. To collect that debt, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant sent her two letters. The first letter, dated Dec. 12, 2018, sought to collect $711.24 and communicated to the Plaintiff that once she has completely fulfilled her payment arrangement, she will be released of the obligation. The second letter, dated Dec. 7, 2018, but not received by the Plaintiff until Jan. 7, 2019, informed her that the Defendant was the sole owner of her credit card debt and that the Plaintiff owed $711.24. The letter also stipulated that the Defendant would not report the Plaintiff's debt to the credit bureaus if she set up a payment plan, made a payment by March 7, 2019, and made all payments as agreed. The Plaintiff maintains that she never set up a payment plan, made a payment by March 7, 2019, or made any payments to the Defendant. Yet, the Defendant never reported the credit card debt to one or more of the credit bureaus as threatened in the Dec. 7, 2018 letter. On Dec. 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. She asserts that the Defendant's two December 2018 letters were threatening, deceptive, and misleading, and violated the FDCPA. The Defendant now moves to compel arbitration and dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, arguing that her original credit card agreement with Credit One contains a broad arbitration provision that compels the Plaintiff to arbitrate any claims related to the subject account. Judge Shipp opines that Plaintiff correctly notes that the Agreement, arbitration provision, and class action waiver were not referenced in the Complaint. Rather, the Agreement and issue of arbitration were raised for the first time in the Defendant's instant motion and accompanying brief. Furthermore, the Plaintiff questions whether the Defendant is a party to the Agreement, as there appear to be issues in the chain of title from Credit One to the Defendant. Because the question of arbitrability cannot be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, it would be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the instant motion. Judge Shipp, therefore, denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration without prejudice and orders the parties to conduct limited discovery regarding the issue of arbitrability. Once completed, the Defendant may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which will be reviewed under a summary judgment standard pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4djz9d from Leagle.com. MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Rosen Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV) between May 15, 2017 and November 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 8, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Minerva investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Minerva class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2004.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: (1) the truth about the feedback received from the FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (2) that the Phase 2b study did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the United States; (3) the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness; (4) Minerva's plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be "highly unlikely" to support the submission of an New Drug Application ("NDA"); (5) that reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead to "substantial review issues" because the trials were inadequate and not well-controlled; and (6) as a result, Minerva'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 February 8, 2021. 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-2004.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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MODI AUTO: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODI AUTO GROUP INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11454 (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In attempt to promote its services, the Defendant placed calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers ending in -0058, -9244, and -1083 beginning in or around October 2018 by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice. The Defendant's agent called the Plaintiff's telephone number that was assigned to a cellular telephone service for which the Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls and messages, without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express consent to be contacted using an ATDS. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages due to the Defendant's unwanted telephone calls that caused the Plaintiff to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he has previously paid, and invaded his privacy. Modi Auto Group Inc. offers car dealership services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MONTGOMERY, AL: Bid to Certify Class in McCullough Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELA McCULLOUGH, et al., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-463-RCL (M.D. Ala.), Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division: (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the City's motion to reconsider and entered summary judgment for the City on Mr. Jones' Section 1983 claim; (iii) denied Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ("JCS")'s motion to reconsider; and (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider. The Court once again considers a case arising from the system of collecting traffic fines in Montgomery, Alabama, between 2009 to 2014. During that time, the Montgomery Municipal Court routinely jailed traffic offenders for failing to pay fines without inquiring into their ability to pay. In carrying out that system, the Municipal Court deprived offenders of their due process and equal protection rights not to be incarcerated for their poverty. During that period, the City of Montgomery contracted on behalf of itself and the Municipal Court with JCS to supervise Municipal Court-ordered misdemeanor probation. The Plaintiffs are Montgomery residents, who served probation with JCS after they were unable to pay their traffic tickets. They sued the City and JCS on behalf of themselves and purported classes of similarly situated persons. Their operative complaint alleges causes of action for violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and for false imprisonment and abuse of process. The Plaintiffs moved to certify the following three classes: a. The plaintiffs seek to certify a Bearden class consisting of all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on JCS-supervised probation, who: (1) had debt commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after JCS petitioned the Court to revoke probation; and (2) served any of that jail time on or after July 1, 2013; b. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a false imprisonment class "consisting of all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on JCS-supervised probation, who: (1) had debt commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after JCS petitioned the Court to revoke probation; and (2) served any of that jail time on or after July 1, 2009"; and c. The Plaintiffs seek to certify an abuse of process class "consisting of all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on JCS-supervised probation: (1) who at any time paid less than the minimum monthly payment ordered by the Court; and (2) from whom JCS continued to collect or attempt to collect after July 1, 2013." All the parties--(1) the City, (2) JCS, and (3) the Plaintiffs--seek reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment decision. As to the City's Motion to Reconsider, the City seeks reconsideration on two grounds: whether they can be held liable for injuries that occurred as a result of revocation petitions filed before July 16, 2012 and whether Jones' claims are time-barred. Judge Lamberth holds that the City is not entitled to the "extraordinary remedy" of reconsideration. The City fails to show any change of law, newly discovered fact, clear error, or manifest injustice to justify reconsideration. He concludes that were he to reconsider the summary judgment ruling, he would still conclude that a reasonable jury could find the City liable for any harms that occurred after July 16, 2012. As the summary judgment decision remains unaltered, granting the City's alternative remedy--a Rule 16 conference to narrow the scope of claims--would be futile. However, the Judge finds that Jones does not fall within the protections of Section 6-2-8, and his Section 1983 claims are, therefore, time-barred. He will enter summary judgment for the City on Mr. Jones' Section 1983 claims. Turning to JCS' Motion to Reconsider, the Judge holds that the Court's Section 1983 causation and false imprisonment holdings were not clearly erroneous, and JCS is not entitled to reconsideration. Even if he reconsidered the Court's decision, he would reach the same conclusions the Court reached in its summary judgment opinions. Also, JCS offers no reason at all why its argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Plaintiffs' claims is properly the subject of a motion to reconsider. JCS is entitled to no relief on the Court's Rooker-Feldman rulings. Rooker-Feldman is a narrow jurisdictional doctrine that prohibits federal district courts from reviewing ... state court judgments. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 293 (2005); see also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). As to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs are not also entitled to reconsideration. And even if he reconsidered the Court's decision, he would reaffirm the decisions it made at the summary judgment stage. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to reconsideration because they fail to show any newly discovered facts, clear error, or manifest injustice to justify reconsideration. As to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the Bearden class is ascertainable; thus, he must hold that the class cannot be certified. And because the Plaintiffs fail to surmount the first threshold issue, no further analysis of the Rule 23 criteria is necessary. He also finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the false imprisonment class is ascertainable; thus, he must hold that the class cannot be certified. The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that the abuse of process class is ascertainable; thus, it must hold that the class cannot be certified. He finds three barriers to finding that the class is ascertainable: the class definition may be substantially over inclusive, the method of ascertaining the class is not directly tied to the class definition and underlying probation orders, and the Plaintiffs have not done enough work to show that the Method of ascertaining the class can succeed. The Plaintiffs must overcome all those problems to succeed in certifying a class. The Plaintiffs opened the class certification hearing with a plea for justice: they argued that absent class certification, the putative class members would not be able to hold the City and JCS accountable. The Judge is cognizant of that concern, but he does not believe his decision creates injustice. In a few months, a jury will hear the case. The trial may even serve as a kind of bellwether for other similar claims. And the Plaintiffs and in other Section 1983 cases are entitled to attorneys' fees if they prevail. Their path to relief remains open. Accordingly, the Judge must deny the motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs may still pursue accountability, but not as class representatives. Finally, the Judge has considered consolidating the case with Carter several times. Because he cannot certify a class, he concludes that consolidation is not warranted. While the cases involve common questions of law and fact, the Judge finds that the additional burden of separate trials would be minimal and that the presence of different causes of action in each case risks confusing the jury. In light of the foregoing, Judge Lamberth (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the City's motion to reconsider and entered summary judgment for the City on Mr. Jones' Section 1983 claim; (iii) denied JCS' motion to reconsider; and (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yblnx39l from Leagle.com. NETFIN ACQUISITION: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW) between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Triterras investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Triterras class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2008.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: (1) the extent to which the Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Triterras' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 February 19, 2021. 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-2008.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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com[GN] NEVADA: Judge Finds DETR No Longer in Contempt in PUA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ news3lv.com reports that a Nevada judge ruled that the state's agency tasked with overseeing unemployment insurance is no longer in contempt of court. Washoe County District Court Judge Barry Breslow ruled that he found the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation's, or DETR's, recent actions to resolve appeals and pay claimants show "substantial compliance." Breslow said the court would purge the contempt citation, but that a $1,000 fine would still stand. The judge had found DETR in contempt earlier in December for failing to pay claimants in the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, or PUA, program, which provides benefits to self-employed, contract and gig workers not covered by traditional unemployment insurance. Breslow has been presiding over a class action case filed by about 9,500 PUA claimants who started to receive money, only for the payments to stop. DETR had argued the delays were caused, in part, by requirements to vet applications for fraud. In hearing, Breslow told DETR he was relying on the state to "do its job" and correctly identify people suspected of fraud. He also warned that "if more than slight evidence is presented to the court" of claimants being erroneously caught in a "fraud bucket," he would revisit how the agency defines fraud. Breslow told DETR to continue to "move forward as robustly as it can to process appeals" and "strongly" encouraged collaboration and dialogue to do so. In a statement released, DETR said that it was "pleased" by the ruling, but acknowledged the original order is still on appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court. "DETR has offered and continues to stand ready to examine and resolve any cases where payment began and was then stopped that is brought to its attention by Plaintiff's counsel," the department said. [GN] NEW PEOPLES BANK: Horn Files Suit in Virginia --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Peoples Bank. The case is styled as David J. Horn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Peoples Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00068-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., Dec. 22, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Banks and Banking filed pursuant to a Diversity-Contract Dispute. New Peoples Bank, Inc. provides banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick L. Walker, Esq. Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen 1809 Staples Mill Road Richmond, VA 23230 Tel: (804) 257-7514 Fax: (804) 746-2315 Email: derrick.walker@allenandallen.com NEW YORK: Judgment in Lisnitzer on Medicaid Eligibility Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LESLIE LISNITZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. HOWARD ZUCKER, M.D., as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, MICHAEL HEIN, as Acting Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-470 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court on final determination of Medicaid eligibility. In March 2011, Plaintiff Lisnitzer applied to a local agency, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, for Medicaid coverage to pay the cost of his monthly Medicare Part B premium. Although Lisnitzer's income exceeded the qualifying limit for Medicaid, he requested that the local agency approve Medicaid payment of his Medicare premium pursuant to a state policy directive, designed to permit Medicare coverage for those frequent users of medical services whose medical expenses, in relation to their income, make Medicaid coverage warranted on a cost/benefit analysis. The local agency denied Lisnitzer's application without considering this policy directive. In June 2011, Lisnitzer requested a fair hearing to contest the local agency's denial. In September 2011, still within 90 days of Lisnitzer's request for a fair hearing, the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA") 'reversed' the County Agency's denial of benefits and 'remanded' the matter to the County Agency, directing the agency to make the eligibility determination following the state policy directive and to comply immediately with the directive. Two weeks after OTDA issued its fair hearing decision, Lisnitzer brought the action against the state Department of Health ("DOH") and OTDA in federal court. He challenged New York's practice of resolving appeals of adverse local agency decisions by reversing and remanding those matters to local agencies. And he argued specifically that New York must determine eligibility for Medicaid benefits by a fair hearing decision within the time prescribed by federal regulations. Lisnitzer's complaint sought class certification, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. Class Action Complaint at 1, Lisnitzer v. Zucker, 306 F.Supp.3d 522 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (No. 11-4641). In March 2012, the local agency adhered to its prior denial, again without considering the state policy directive. Later, the local agency reversed itself and determined that Lisnitzer was, in fact, eligible for Medicaid. The decision came 342 days after Lisnitzer requested a fair hearing. In it, the local agency approved future payments of Lisnitzer's Medicare Part B premiums and $1,476 in reimbursement for past premiums. In March 2017, the district court held a two-hour bench trial in Lisnitzer's federal suit. In January 2018, the court issued a decision setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court then held that the 90-day requirement for final administrative action means that the state was required to provide a final determination of Lisnitzer's eligibility for benefits within that time period, not simply any disposition, including a 'remand' of the appeal. In February 2019, the district court entered judgment in light of the court's earlier findings and conclusions. It permanently enjoined New York from issuing fair hearing decisions that remand matters to local districts without rendering final determinations of eligibility based upon the development of complete fair hearing records within 90 days of the hearing requests exclusive of adjournments requested by applicants. New York timely filed a notice of appeal. It also sought a stay of the judgment pending appeal, which the district court granted in April 2019. On appeal, New York challenges the district court's class certification, as well as the court's conclusion that the state's Medicaid fair hearings practice violates federal law when it does not result in final eligibility determinations within 90 days of hearing requests. In the case, the Court is asked to interpret the phrase "final administrative action" in the context of a federal Medicaid regulation that requires a state agency to take such action within a specified time limit following a Medicaid applicant's request for a fair hearing. The district court held that hearing decisions that remand cases to local agencies without determining Medicaid eligibility do not satisfy the federal regulatory requirement of "final administrative action," which under the same regulation must come, "ordinarily, within 90 days" of a hearing request. The Second Circuit holds that neither the Medicaid Act nor the federal Medicaid regulations define the phrase "final administrative action." Its then is to give that phrase a meaning. That is best done in dialogue with three sources: the Court's previous opinion in Shakhnes v. Berlin, 689 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2012); the structure and purpose of the federal regulations, helped by a reading of them offered by the United States; and the State Medicaid Manual, a publication of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, to which we owe a degree of deference. Based on those sources, the Court concludes that "final administrative action," as used in Section 431.244(f), requires a final determination of Medicaid eligibility. Such determination must, therefore, be made ordinarily within 90 days of an applicant's fair hearing request. Nevertheless, because the regulation requires that final administrative action be taken by the state agency responsible for administering or supervising the administration of Medicaid, and does not specify any particular component or delegate of the agency, the Court also holds that such eligibility determinations may be made in hearing decisions or on remand to local agencies. In other words, it holds that the regulation mandates that states meet the applicable deadline, but it does not limit states as to the administrative level at which that deadline is met. Turning to the issue of class certification, New York argues that the district court abused its discretion by certifying a class, both because it failed to conduct a rigorous analysis of Rule 23's requirements, and because Lisnitzer is an atypical and inadequate class representative. The Court remands to the district court to seek a commitment from state officials to abide by a declaration in a pending case. If state officials agree, there is no need to rule on the class certification. If state officials refuse, the district court may avoid our having to decide whether the Rule 23 requirements were "obviously" met by making additional findings regarding the class, thereby facilitating the Court's review. For these reasons, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court to the extent that it holds that the requirement of final administrative action entails a final determination of Medicaid eligibility and must be made within 90 days of a fair hearing request. It holds that such final determinations need not be made at the hearing decision level. The Court remands to the district court to enter a revised judgment consistent with its opinion. And it remands to the district court to seek a commitment from state officials that the state will abide by the ruling made in all pending cases. Should no such commitment be given, the Court directs the district court to make further findings regarding the class' compliance with each Rule 23 requirement, giving particular attention to whether Lisnitzer remains an adequate class representative. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yae2txlc from Leagle.com. PETER VOLLMER, Law Office of Peter Vollmer, P.C., in Sea Cliff, New York (John F. Castellano, Mercy Advocacy Program, in Islip Terrace, New York, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee Leslie Lisnitzer. STEVEN C. WU -- steven.wu@ag.ny.gov -- Deputy Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood -- barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov -- Solicitor General, Blair J. Greenwald, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, in New York City, for Defendants-Appellants Howard Zucker, M.D., and Michael Hein. LEWIS S. YELIN (Robert P. Charrow, General Counsel, Brenna E. Jenny, Deputy General Counsel, Kirsten F. Roddy, Melissa D. Hart, United States Department of Health & Human Services, Washington, D.C.; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Alisa B. Klein, United States Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C.; Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, New York, on the brief), for the United States as Amicus Curiae. NORTHERN DYNASTY: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- December 31, 2020 (ACCESSWIRE The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK) Investors Affected: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=11896&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.comPhone: (212) 537-9430Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Zhang Investor Law Reminds Feb. 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK) between December 21, 2017 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd&id=2517 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd&id=2517 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 2, 2021. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] NORTHERN STAR: Monteverde Probes Firm Over BarkBox Proposed Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde & Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Northern Star Acquisition Corp. ("STIC" or the "Company") (STIC) relating to its proposed merger with BarkBox, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, STIC acquire BarkBox through a reverse merger, with Barkbox emerging as a publicly traded company. The investigation focuses on whether Northern Star Acquisition Corp. and its Board of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by 1) failing to conduct a fair process, and 2) whether and by how much this proposed transaction undervalues the Company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/northern-star-acquisition-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top 50 in the 2018 and 2019 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in Northern Star Acquisition Corp. and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2020 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN] NOW OPTICS: Faces Clark Suit Over Unlawful Employment Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- TANIS CLARK, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NOW OPTICS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00044817-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Dec. 7, 2020) challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code against Plaintiff and other individuals who worked for the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks to recover penalties and/or damages for the Defendants' failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying meal period premiums, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and restitution for unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code. Mr. Clark was hired by the Defendant in or about June 2019 as a sales manager. He works as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Now Optics, LLC is an eye health industry company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Putative Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit in California. Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and two of its officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a consolidated amended complaint. The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again naming the company and two of its officers as defendants. The Current Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Current Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On September 11, 2020, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the Current Complaint and held that the lead plaintiff adequately stated a claim with respect to certain statements regarding our new customer growth and sales productivity. The court held a case management conference on October 27, 2020 and set a pretrial schedule for the case. Nutanix said, "The litigation is still in early stages, and we plan to continue to vigorously defend against the allegations and we are not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the Current Complaint." Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. NY MINUTE MOVERS: Faces Cotton Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS COTTON, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NY MINUTE MOVERS, INC. and MICHAEL DISPARRA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06153 (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2020) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 30, 2020 through December 2, 2020 as a helper. The Plaintiff claims that although he regularly worked 60 hours per workweek, he was not correctly compensated by the Defendants at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek because the Defendants failed to compensate him for all travel time between moving sites on a regular basis. Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time records for all the Plaintiff's hours worked, and failed to provide him with an accurate wage statement. NY Minute Movers, Inc. provides long distance moving services outside of the state to ensure prompt deliveries of its customers' goods. Michael Diasparra is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of the company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. Imran Ansari, Esq. AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C. 546 5th Avenue New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 486-0011 E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com PEACHES BOUTIQUE: Faces Geever Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY GEEVER, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. PEACHES BOUTIQUE LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, ROY SURDEJ, individually, and BARBARA SURDEJ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07537 (N.D. Ill., December 18, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. Between approximately 2010 to June 2020, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants performing clothing sales and customer service duties. The Plaintiff asserts that during her employment with the Defendants, she frequently worked over 40 hours per week without being compensated for overtime hours she worked at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay. Instead, she only received straight-time regular rate of pay, including those hours she worked in excess of 40 per week. Peaches Boutique LLC d/b/a Peaches Boutique operates a retail store that sells clothing and related accessories to customers. Roy Surdej and Barbara Surdej are the owners and operators. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 853-1450 PETCO ANIMAL: Faces Consumer Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq. -- nbarrowclough@lowenstein.com -- and Kathleen McGee, Esq., of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that a putative consumer class action filed in California state court on Dec. 25 the 18th against Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc. (Petco) and its wholly owned subsidiary PupBox Inc. (PupBox) alleges that between February and August an "unauthorized plugin" on the PupBox website caused the personal and credit card information of approximately 30,000 consumers to be stolen by an unauthorized third party. The complaint asserts, on information and belief, that the cyberattack resulted from the defendants' failure to encrypt payment card data (PCD) at the point of sale and/or that the defendants "failed to install updates, patches, and malware protection or to install them in a timely manner to protect against a data security breach; and/or failed to provide sufficient control employee credentials and access to computer systems to prevent a security breach and/or theft of PCD." The complaint further alleges that although Petco first learned of the cyberattack in early August, PupBox customers were not notified of the breach until October, creating a two-month lag during which class members could have attempted to mitigate the damage caused by the breach. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Records Act, and common law claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Data breaches can be costly to companies in more ways than one. In addition to having to hire a forensic investigator to investigate the breach, companies risk reputational damage, contractual disputes, class action litigation, and potential regulatory investigations. For those financial companies regulated by the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's Safeguards Rule or the data security provisions of New York's Department of Financial Services, their responsibility to secure sensitive information extends to their affiliates and service providers as well. While cyber insurance policies can provide an array of coverages and are a must-have, preparation is your best defense against a cyberattack. Many financial companies are required to create and maintain an information security program as well as a safeguard compliance program. All companies should be updating software security patches at the first opportunity and actively monitoring their systems for signs of unauthorized intrusions such as phishing exploits that inadvertently reveal passwords or other sensitive information. Sensitive data should be retained for only as long as necessary and stored in an encrypted database with limited access. Contracts with service providers should mandate strong data security practices as well. The time and effort expended on data protection have proven to be well worth the investment. [GN] PHILLIPS 66: Misclassifies Construction Staff, Turek Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL TUREK, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04303 (S.D. Tex., December 18, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a construction field representative from approximately May 2011 until July 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and other similarly situated CFRs as independent contractors. Although they regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid them a flat amount for each day worked without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime and an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law. Phillips 66 Company is a diversified energy manufacturing and logistics company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, 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 - 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 PINNACLE SECURITY: Martinez Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS W. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINNACLE SECURITY CONTROL, INC., OLUSEGUN OLONIJU, and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-06135 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative members of the class and collective for their overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one half times their regular rate of pay, provide Plaintiff and the putative members of the class with the notices required by NYLL and provide Plaintiff and the putative members of the class with wages statements as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff worked as a security guard for the Defendants from approximately December 1, 2016 to April 15, 2018. Pinnacle Security Control, Inc. provides security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. Paul A. Pagano, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 East Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 E-mail: paul.pagano@moserlawfirm.com PINTEREST INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of January 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=pinterest-inc-2&id=2515 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=pinterest-inc-2&id=2515 According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity; which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 22, 2021. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] PLAZA RESEARCH CORP: Advanced Dermatology Files TCPA Suit in Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Research Corporation. The case is styled as Advanced Dermatology, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Plaza Research Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02826-SL (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 23, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Plaza Research Corporation is located in Paramus, NJ, United States and is part of the Market Research & Polling Services Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Berler, Esq. Frederick & Berler LLC 767 East 185 Street Cleveland, OH 44119 Tel: (216) 502-1055 Fax: (216) 566-9400 Email: mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com - and - Michael L. Fine, Esq. Frederick & Berler LLC 767 East 185 Street Cleveland, OH 44119 Tel: (216) 502-1055 Fax: (216) 566-9400 Email: michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com - and - Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. Frederick & Berler 767 East 185 Street Cleveland, OH 44119 Tel: (216) 502-1055 Fax: (216) 566-9400 Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Bridges Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action and adversary proceeding has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. The case is styled as Stacey Bridges, Bloyd Creighton, and Others Similarly Situated v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., Adversary Case No. 20-07027-rdd (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2020). The lawsuit seeks recovery of money/property. The case is assigned to Judge Robert D. Drain. Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company founded by John Purdue Gray. It is owned principally by members of the Sackler family as descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roderick Graham, Esq. P.O. Box 43334 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 427-9494 E-mail: rodgrah@hotmail.com - and - Frank Ozment, Esq. 217 Country Club Park, Box 501 Birmingham, AL 35213 Telephone: (205) 847-5401 E-mail: frankOzmentlaw@gmail.com The Defendant appears pro se. QIWI PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Qiwi Plc ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QIWI) securities between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Qiwi investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/qiwi-plc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On December 10, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled "QIWI (QIWI) Fined by Bank of Russia, Restricts Operations." Therein, Qiwi stated that "[f]rom July to December 2020, the Central Bank of Russia ('CBR'), acting in its supervisory capacity, performed a routine scheduled audit of Qiwi Bank JSC ('Qiwi Bank') for the period of July 2018 to September 2020 and, in the course of this audit, has identified certain violations and deficiencies relating primarily to reporting and record-keeping requirements." The Company was fined RUB 11 million, or approximately USD 150,000. The release also stated that "the CBR introduced certain restrictions with respect to Qiwi Bank's operations, including, effective from December 7, 2020, the suspension or limitation of most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts." On this news, the Company's ADR price fell $2.80 per share, or 20%, to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Qiwi securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 9, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] QIWI PLC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI) Investors Affected: March 28, 2019 - December 9, 2020A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Qiwi plc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=11896&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT:The Gross Law Firm15 West 38th Street, 12th floorNew York, NY, 10018Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.comPhone: (212) 537-9430Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] QIWI PLC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Qiwi plc ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QIWI) securities during the period from March 28, 2019 through December 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 9, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of Russia had imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for deficient record-keeping and reporting, and suspended the Company's conduct most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts. On this news, Qiwi's ADS price fell $2.80 per share, or approximately 20.6%, to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020. If you acquired Qiwi securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] QUTOUTIAO INC: Jan. 15 Deadline Set for Securities Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- On November 4, 2020, United States District Court Judge Sidney Stein appointed Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP to be Lead Counsel on behalf of Lead Plaintiff James Pappa in Steven Burnham v. Qutoutiao, Inc. et al., 20-cv-06707-SHS (S.D.N.Y.) and Howard Brown v. Qutoutiao, Inc. et al., 20-cv-07717-SHS (S.D.N.Y.). This securities class action is brought on behalf of anyone who acquired shares of Qutoutiao, Inc. (QTT) (1) pursuant to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering or (2) from the market between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges that QTT violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and/or misleading information in its IPO offering documents and in its public statements while trading on NASDAQ. Specifically, that QTT failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing third-party oversight of the content and quality of the advertisements; (2) the Company placed advertisements on its mobile application for products whose claims could not be substantiated and thus were considered false advertisements under applicable regulations; (3) as a result, the Company would face increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) as a result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. QTT offers a mobile application called Qutoutiao, meaning "fun headlines" in Chinese, that provides a customized feed to its users of aggregated articles and short videos from professional media and freelancers. On September 14, 2018, QTT issued its IPO, and sold 13.8 million shares at a price of $7.00 per share. On December 10, 2019, Wolfpack Research published a report, alleging among other things, that the Company had overstated its revenues by recording non-existent advances from advertising customers. Moreover, the report alleged that Qutoutiao replaced its third-party advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing the agent's oversight and allowing the Company to "perpetrate the unmitigated ad fraud that [Wolfpack] observed in [its] sample." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, nearly 4%, to close at $2.86 per share on December 11, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The truth was fully revealed on July 15, 2020 when China's state-controlled broadcasting network aired its annual consumer rights event. That evening, the hosts stated that Qutoutiao had allowed ads on its platform promoting exaggerated or impossible claims from weight-loss products. For example, one such ad offered free weight-loss products valued at $14,300 that would help users lose more than 30 pounds a month. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.85, or 23%, to close at $2.84 per share on July 16, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. In appointing Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP as Lead Counsel, the Court recognized that the firm "is sufficiently qualified, experienced, and capable to represent the interests of class members in this action." The Court accepted the Parties' stipulation and proposed order requiring Lead Plaintiff James Pappa to file and serve a consolidated amended complaint no later than January 15, 2021. For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Vel Freedman (vel@rcfllp.com) at 305 306-9211, Ivy T. Ngo (Ingo@rcfllp.com) at (646) 876-3568, or Constantine Economides (Ceconomides@rcfllp.com) at (305) 851-5997. [GN] RESTAURANT BRANDS: Four Law Firms File Securities Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- QSRweb reports that at least four separate law firms have filed suit against Popeyes', Burger King' and Tim Hortons' Toronto-based parent company, Restaurant Brands International, according to a series of news releases from the litigation groups. Three of the suits are class actions, while a fourth suit is awaiting certification as a class by the court. The legal actions are aimed at holding the Canadian QSR company responsible for allegedly telling investors that the company's efforts to turn around sales declines at Tim Hortons were working, then later revealing sales at the QSR were, in fact, worsening. The suits alleged that was a misrepresentation that not only led to financial losses for investors, but violated U.S. securities laws. The Canadian corporation, Restaurant Brands International, is among the world's biggest quick-service restaurant companies, with more than 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. The suits allege that RBI investors between late April and late October last year, were duped about the effectiveness of the company's Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty program. The firms involved to date include: -- Bernstein Liebhard LLP in New York City. -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC in New York City. -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP in Radnor, Pennsylvania -- Rosen Law Firm in New York City, which is still seeking certification as a class action. At Bernstein Liebhard, for example, the release said that after RBI touted the benefits of those two aforementioned initiatives, the company completed two stock offerings on or about Aug.12 and Sept. 5, last year, which collectively resulted in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to "insiders." But in the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, attorneys allege that following that, on Oct. 29, 2019, the company announced disappointing financial results for the third quarter that ended Sept. 30, 2019. At that time, RBI reported a 0.1% system-wide year-over-year sales decline for Tim Hortons -- representing a 1.4% same-store sales decline -- on system-wide sales of $1.774 billion. Following news reports of the results, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock fell $2.59 per share or approximately 3.8%, from a close of $68.45 per share on Oct. 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share on Oct. 28, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the period of the class (April 29, 2019 to Oct. 28, 2019), the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand The Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting. As a result, the suit alleges that the defendants' statements about Restaurant Brands' business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis, which violated mandates of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, in the action filed by Bernstein Liebhard, attorneys said that after reporting the poor Q3 results on Oct. 28, last year, RBI executives acknowledged that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with global comparable sales dipping into negative territory," saying that "discounting [associated with "Tims Rewards"] is slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to "softness in sales," according to the release. At Kessler Topas Meltzer & Check, the complaint alleges that, throughout the same class period, RBI misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: -- Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand. -- The Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting. In all of the court actions, investors have been given until Feb. 19, 2021 to join the suit. RBI did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] RESTAURANT BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, on Dec. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands International, Inc. ("Restaurant Brands" or the "Company") (NYSE: QSR) securities between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Restaurant Brands investors have until February 19, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Restaurant Brands investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/restaurant-brands-international-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. On October 28, 2019, the Company announced disappointing financial results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2019. Specifically, Restaurant Brands and its executives acknowledged that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with global comparable sales dipping into negative territory" and admitted that "discounting [associated with Tims Rewards] is slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to "softness in sales." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.59, or 3.8%, to close at $65.86 per share on October 28, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Restaurant Brands' "Winning Together Plan" was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the "Tims Rewards" loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 19, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Filing of Consolidated Amended Suit in Takata OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CREIGHTON TAKATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-2293 (FLW) (ZNQ) (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Lead Plaintiff Dr. Stanley Golovac's Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff filed a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CCAC"), against various Defendants Riot and certain of Riot's directors, officers, and individual investors, who responded with seven separate Motions to Dismiss ("MTDs"). In his CCAC, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 under that statute. Furthermore, he asserts that various Defendants are vicariously liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Defendants' MTDs were granted, and the Plaintiff's CCAC was dismissed without prejudice. In addition to dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims, the Court required that if the Plaintiff files an amended complaint, in addition to addressing the deficiencies identified in the Opinion, the Plaintiff must include additional scienter allegations that are particularized as to each Defendant. Magistrate Judge Quraishi must now consider whether the Plaintiff's Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("CSAC") cures the deficiencies highlighted in the Court's April 30, 2020 Memorandum Opinion. Specifically, Plaintiff must sufficiently plead: (i) all elements of false statement liability under Section 10(b) against all the Defendants (Count II in CSAC); (ii) loss causation against Defendant Honig (Count I in CSAC); (iii) deceptive or manipulative acts, scienter, and loss causation against the Defendants Riot, Beeghley, O'Rourke, DeFrancesco, Groussman, and Stetson (Count I in CSAC); and (iv) Count III was dismissed by the Court because it is fully dependent on the adequacy of Counts I and II of the Plaintiff's complaint. Therefore, if the Court finds the Plaintiff has adequately alleged Counts I and II, he may proceed with Count III. All of the Defendants present one substantive argument in their oppositions to the Plaintiff's Motion: that the Motion should be denied because it is futile. The Riot Defendants argue that the CSAC is futile because: (1) Section 13(d) does not apply to the Riot Defendants; (2) the Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the Riot Defendants knew that Defendants Honig, DeFrancesco, Groussman and Stetson qualified as a "group"; (3) Riot did not engage in any undisclosed related-party transactions as alleged by the Plaintiff; (4) Riot's SEC filings were not false or misleading; and (5) the Plaintiff's claims do not give rise to a strong inference of scienter by the Riot Defendants. The Magistrate Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff is only applying the definition of a "group" from Section 13(d) to the Riot Defendants' disclosure obligations under Item 403 of Regulation S-K; (ii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that the Riot Defendants either filed a false and misleading statement by a material omission, or engaged in a deceptive act, under Rule 10b of the Exchange Act; (iii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Riot Defendants filed a false or misleading statement, or deceptive act, by leaving out specific details such as the investor's (Honig's) name and that his investment was a related-party transaction in their Item 404 of Regulation S-K forms; and (iv) the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges loss causation, as to the Riot Defendants, for purposes of the Motion. As a result of Rule 15(a)(2)'s and his liberal approach toward granting leave to file amendments, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff's allegations against the Riot Defendants are not futile and the Plaintiff may proceed with Count II of its CSAC. Therefore, the Plaintiff may proceed with Count II of its CSAC against the Riot Defendants. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's allegations in Count I and Count II rest on nearly identical factual allegations. Thus, for the same reasons he grants the Plaintiff leave to file its amended complaint as to Count II, the Magistrate Judge does for Count I, as well. As to Defendants Honig, DeFrancesco, Groussman, and Stetson, under the liberal approach applied to pleading loss causation, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged their actions individually and collectively contributed to change Riot's stock price. Thus, the Plaintiff may proceed with Counts I and II against Defendants Honig, DeFrancesco, Groussman, and Stetson. Finally, because the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged violations of Section 10b of the Exchange Act, and none of the relevant Defendants have provided any opposition to Count III, he may proceed with Count III against all the Defendants (except Riot). In summary, Magistrate Judge Quraishi finds that the Plaintiff's CSAC adequately states his claims against all the Defendants by pleading more particularized facts as to each Defendant to support every element of each of his claims. For the reasons he stated, and for other good cause shown, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File his Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yda9rlmz from Leagle.com. ROSETTA STONE: Lotun Consumer Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NADIA LOTUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROSETTA STONE, INC.; ROSETTA STONE LTD.; ROSETTA STONE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CAMBIAN LEARNING GROUP, INC.; VERITAS CAPITAL FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES-1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01161980-CU-AT-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-02430 to the proceeding. The case arises from the emotional distress, frustration, anxiety and monetary injury allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of her purchase of the Defendants' product described as Rosetta Stone Learn Spanish: Rosetta Stone Bonus Pack (24 month subscription + Lifetime Down [sic] [of the software] + Book Set), pursuant to the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Rosetta Stone Inc. is an American education technology software company, with its principal place of business located at 1621 North Kent Street, Suite 1200, Arlington, Virginia. Rosetta Stone International Inc. is an American education technology software company, with its principal place of business located at 1621 North Kent Street, Suite 1200, Arlington, Virginia. Rosetta Stone Ltd. is an educational software developer, with its principal place of business located at 135 West Market Street, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Cambium Learning Group, Inc. is an educational software developer, with its principal place of business located at 17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas. Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C. is a private-equity firm, with its headquarters located at 9 West 57th Street, 32nd Floor, New York, New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Teresa H. Michaud, Esq. BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-4728 Facsimile: (310) 201-4721 E-mail: teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com - and – Alexander G. Davis, Esq. BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 600 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 856-2400 Facsimile: (650) 856-9299 E-mail: alexander.davis@bakermckenzie.com RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Appeals Class Action Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Ruby Receptionists, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled McKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A., and OLIVER LAW OFFICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01921-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 7, 2020, the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an Order: 1. denying Ruby's Motion to Decertify the Class, First Motion for Summary Judgment, Second Motion for Summary Judgment, and Third Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Lori Bocklund, and Motion to Exclude Certain Evidence from the Declarations of Diana Stepleton. In this class action, the Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, money had and received, and unjust enrichment, all based on Ruby's allegedly misleading practices relating to the billing of what Ruby calls a "receptionist minute." Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certified a class consisting of: "all persons or entities in the United States who obtained receptionist services from Defendant Ruby Receptionists between November 2, 2012 and May 31, 2018, pursuant to its form Service Agreements." The Plaintiffs and class representatives McKenzie Law Firm, P.A. and Oliver Law Offices, Inc. are former clients of the Defendant Ruby Receptionists, Inc., a business that provides virtual receptionist services. The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the said order entered by Judge Simon. The appellate case is captioned as McKenzie Law Firm, P.A., et al v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., Case No. 20-36082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule of the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Ruby Receptionists, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 24, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 15, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021; -- Appellant Ruby Receptionists, Inc. opening brief is due on March 26, 2021; -- Appellees McKenzie Law Firm, P.A. and Oliver Law Offices, Inc. answering brief is due on April 26, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MCKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A. and OLIVER LAW OFFICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cody Berne, Esq. Keith Scott Dubanevich, Esq. Megan Houlihan, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, P.C. 209 SW Oak Street Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 E-mail: cberne@stollberne.com kdubanevich@stollberne.com mhoulihan@stollberne.com - and - Gregory J. Brod, Esq. BROD LAW FIRM, PC 96 Jessie Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-1130 E-mail: gregb@brodfirm.com - and - Mario M. Choi, Esq. Laurence David King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 E-mail: mchoi@kaplanfox.com lking@kaplanfox.com - and - Jon Michael Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com - and - Robert Ian Lax, Esq. LAX LLP 380 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 818-9150 E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com Defendant-Appellant RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC. is represented by: Julia Elizabeth Markley, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: (503) 727-2000 E-mail: JMarkley@perkinscoie.com SACHS ELECTRIC: Granted Judgment on Pleadings in Durham Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM DURHAM, et al., Plaintiffs v. SACHS ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04506-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Sachs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and granted in part and denied in part Sachs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The action arises out of Plaintiff Durham and the proposed class members' employment by Defendant Sachs at the California Flats Solar Project. Durham is a California resident and former non-exempt employee of Sachs at the California Flats Solar Project Site in Monterey County, California. Sachs and co-Defendant McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. are Missouri corporations involved in the construction and development of photovoltaic solar projects. Durham was employed at the Project from July 2016 to September 2017. He alleges that he was not compensated for all hours worked. In particular, Durham claims that Sachs failed to compensate him for buggy time from the parking lot to the installation site and during meal periods. On July 25, 2018, Durham filed a wage and hours class action as an individual and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. He seeks to bring the following five class claims: (1) failure to pay wages for hours worked under Cal. Labor Code Section 1197; (2) wage statement and record-keeping violations under Cal. Labor Code Section 226; (3) failure to pay waiting time wages under Cal. Labor Code Section 203; (4) violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; and (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Durham separately brings an individual claim for the recovery of civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. He Durham filed a motion to certify two classes and two subclasses on June 15, 2020. On June 15, 2020, Sachs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Two weeks later, it filed a partial motion for summary judgment. At the time of the hearing on the two motions, Durham's motion for class certification was pending. Based on the parties' agreement, the Court deferred issuance of a class certification order until it resolved the two instant motions. Sachs requests that the Court takes judicial notice of two collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") that covered the Project, the IBEW Local 234 collective bargaining agreement and the Project Labor Agreement specific to the Project, a union wage rate sheet, and the Senate committee report on Assembly Bill 569, which amended Cal. Labor Code Section 512(e). Durham does not object to the request. Judge Freeman granted Sachs' motion for judicial notice. Courts in the district have granted judicial notice of CBAs, and neither the validity nor the content of the CBA is at issue in the case. The Court may also take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue. The Judge also granted Sachs' motion for judgment on the pleadings. She concludes that meal period claim under Section 512 was statutorily exempted by Section 512(e) because his employment was covered by a qualifying CBA. She holds that she need not reach Sachs' argument about preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act Section 301 as it is moot. Accordingly, Durham's claims to the extent they are predicated on meal period violations are dismissed. Sachs requests partial summary judgment before the Court issues its class certification order. The parties agree that the timing of this order is appropriate given the circumstances, and the Judge does not conclude otherwise. Sachs moves the Court to determine that (1) Durham's inability to leave the Project or return to the parking lot during meal periods is irrelevant to the issue of control; and (2) Durham's buggy time claim is barred by a CBA. The Judge granted summary judgment of the following facts: it is not relevant to whether Durham was subject to Sachs' control during a meal period (1) whether Durham was able to leave the Project and (2) whether Sachs allowed Durham to ride in a buggy to return to the parking lot. She does not opine as to whether Sachs otherwise controlled its employees during the meal period. She agrees with Durham that the degree of control exercised by Sachs is at a minimum a triable issue of fact. The Judge denied Sachs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Durham's buggy time claim. Durham's claim for minimum wages between the parking lot and his work site is not barred by a CBA. Moreover, a unionized employee cannot be deprived of the full protections afforded by state law simply by virtue of the fact that her union has entered in a CBA. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7urskcs from Leagle.com. SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Pawar Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group on Dec. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (OTC: SMICY) from April 23, 2020 through September 26, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: there was an "unacceptable risk" that equipment supplied to SMIC would be used for military purposes; SMIC was foreseeably at risk of facing U.S. restrictions; as a result of restrictions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC's suppliers would need "difficult-to-obtain" individual export licenses; and as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway --------------------------------------------------------- ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself against a class action suit initiated by Corey Splond. On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County, naming the Company and its client as defendants, and alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws. This lawsuit is in the initial stages, and the Company denies any liability. Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, the potential damages recoverable will depend substantially upon whether the Court determines in the future that this lawsuit may appropriately be maintained as a class action. ShiftPixy said, "Further, in the event that the Court ultimately enters a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Company believes that it would be contractually entitled to be indemnified by its client against at least a portion of any damage award." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor, human resources consultant, and administrator of workers' compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant, hospitality, and maintenance service industries. SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against SJI Ongoing in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that SJI, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants' Motion. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion. On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed. On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016 and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members “never consented” to the Arbitrator determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's motions was heard. On January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the litigation. On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date. A new trial date has not been set. On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's August 17, 2017 Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII matter from 70,000 to potentially 254. Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is 254. On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal. The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to submit additional arguments on that issue, which were submitted. On November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit issued an order reversing and remanding the District Court's January 15, 2018 Order that vacated the Arbitrator's Class Determination Award certifying for declaratory and injunctive relief a Title VII pay and promotions class of female retail sales employees. The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred when it concluded that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in purporting to bind absent class members to the Class Determination Award. The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to decide the narrower question of whether the Arbitrator erred in certifying an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a hearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc. On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its motion for stay of mandate with the Second Circuit pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 22, 2020, the Second Circuit granted Sterling's motion for stay of mandate. SJI's petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2020. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits Underway in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend shareholder class action suits in California. Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC. All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo. The remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the Federal Action). In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020. In April 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the court granted. The Company and the other defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. The Company and the other defendants filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2020. The plaintiff-appellee is expected to file its brief in December 2020. No argument date has been set. The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the State Court Action). An additional state court action was filed in San Mateo County in June 2020 but was consolidated with the State Court Action in July 2020. The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers to the complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020. In August 2020, the court sustained in part and overruled in part the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they did in October 2020. The Company and the other defendants answered the complaint in November 2020. The plaintiff in the San Francisco Action has sought dismissal of that action after joining the State Court Action. That dismissal remains pending. The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure, enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco, California. SMITH & WESSON: Bid to Dismiss Shooting Victims Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit pending before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada, is pending. The company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto on July 22, 2018 and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. he plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. On July 13, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. On October 16, 2020, the plaintiffs opposed the company's motion. On November 10, 2020, the company filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition. A hearing on the company's motion seeking to dismiss the action is scheduled for December 3-4, 2020. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. manufactures firearms. The Company offers pistols, revolvers, rifles, handcuffs, and other related products and accessories for consumers, law enforcement, and security agencies. Smith & Wesson Brands serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Springfield, Massachusetts. SONA NANOTECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Sona Nanotech Inc. ("Sona" or the "Company") (OTC BB: SNANF) from July 2, 2020 through November 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Sona securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit SNANF Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(1) it was unreasonable for Sona to represent that it could receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen test within a month; (2) Sona's positive statements about its COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would deprioritize emergency use authorization approval of Sona's antigen test finding it did not meet "the public health need" criterion; (3) it was unreasonable for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a short period of time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either the FDA or Health Canada; (4) Sona would have to withdraw its submission for Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for the marketing of its COVID-19 antigen test as it lacked sufficient clinical data to support approval; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled "U.S. FDA panel votes cannot ignore unsuccessful trial data on Biogen Alzheimer's drug" which provided information regarding the FDA panel's votes. On August 6, 2020 Sona published a press release providing an update on the status of its COVID-19 antigen test and stating there would be a delay in results. On this news, shares of Sona fell $3.09 per share, or over 34%, to close at $5.91 per share on August 6, 2020. On October 29, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing that the FDA deprioritized its EUA review of Sona's COVID-19 antigen test. On this news, shares of Sona fell $2.77 per share, or over 48% to close at $3.00 per share on October 29, 2020, damaging investors. Then, on November 25, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing that it withdrew its application of IO authorization form Health Canada for its COVID-19d antigen test. On this news, shares of Sona fell $1.56 per share, or over 67%, to close at $0.74 per share on November 25, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Sona securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/sonananotechinc-snanf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-349/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] SONA NANOTECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 16 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sona Nanotech Inc. ("Sona" or "the Company") (OTC: SNANF) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Sona securities between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/snanf. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) it was unreasonable for Sona to represent that it could receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen test within a month; (2) Sona's positive statements about its COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would deprioritize emergency use authorization approval of Sona's antigen test finding it did not meet "the public health need" criterion; (3) it was unreasonable for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a short period of time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either the FDA or Health Canada; (4) Sona would have to withdraw its submission for Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for the marketing of its COVID-19 antigen test as it lacked sufficient clinical data to support approval; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/snanf or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Sona you have until February 16, 2021 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS: Schion FLSA Suit Moved From N.D. to W.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VIRGIL SCHION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CONNECTIONS & SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03266, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 7:20-cv-00291 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Southern Connections & Services, Inc. is an oil and gas exploration service company based in Midland, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net SPECTRUM BRANDS: Wisconsin Class Action Settlement Awaits Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that settlement reached in a Wisconsin class action suit is awaiting final approval by the Circuit Court of Dane County. On August 16, 2019, a state court class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleged that certain financial statements contained misstatements in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. During the year ended September 30, 2020, the Company recognized $0.9 million for a proposed settlement, net third-party insurance coverage and payment, which has been paid and is being held in escrow pending a final approval by the Circuit Court of Dane County. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded consumer products company. The company manage the businesses in four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware & Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet Care, and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets and/or distributes its products globally in North America, Europe, Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions through a variety of trade channels, including retailers, wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and construction companies. The company is based in Middleton, Wisconsin. SPLUNK INC: Claimsfiler Reminds of Feb. 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Splunk Inc. (SPLK) Class Period: 10/21/2020 - 12/2/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 2, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-splunk-inc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself from a class lawsuit related to is natural gas and electricity business in New York. The Partnership's operations are subject to operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering combustible liquids such as propane. The Partnership has been, and will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation as a result of these operating hazards and risks, and as a result of other aspects of its business. In this regard, the Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently a defendant in a putative class action suit in the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges a number of claims under various consumer statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding pricing offered to electricity customers in those states. The complaint was dismissed in part by the district court, but causes of action based on the New York consumer statute and breach of contract were allowed to proceed. Based on the nature of the allegations in the suit, the Partnership believes that the suit is without merit and is defending against it vigorously. With respect to this pending suit, the Partnership has determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no reserve for a loss contingency is required. The Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from the action. Although any litigation is inherently uncertain, based on past experience, the information currently available to the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued insurance liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that currently pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims or known contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other. Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey. SULLIVAN COUNTY, TN: Settles Class Lawsuit Over Jail Overcrowding ----------------------------------------------------------------- Herald Courier reports that Sullivan County Attorney Dan Street said that 2020 ended with a big win for the county: the settlement of a hefty class-action federal lawsuit that had been filed against it over violent and overcrowded conditions in its jail. In October 2019, Travis Bellew, a former jail inmate, filed a class-action federal lawsuit against Sullivan County, Sheriff Jeff Cassidy, Chief Jail Administrator Lee Carswell, a former corrections officer named Christopher Sabo and some other unnamed Sheriff's Office employees. The suit claimed that when Bellew was an inmate at the county jail in 2018, Sabo violently assaulted him for no reason. (Sabo pleaded guilty to the assault charge.) It also alleged that the assault stemmed from a "violent culture created by decrepit jail conditions -- including severe overcrowding and understaffing," according to the complaint. Bellew sought $3 million in damages for himself, along with damages for everyone who'd been incarcerated in the jail since 2014. But Street said that on Dec. 8, 2020, he reached an agreement with Bellew and his lawyers: The county would pay Bellew $175,000 in damages, and the class-action charges would be dropped. Street said he was "very, very, very pleased" that he'd been able to reach an agreement with Bellew and his lawyers outside of court. "I don't mean to mitigate Mr. Bellew's individual claim, but because they sought to [make it a class-action case], if Mr. Bellew was successful in his suit, then the damages would multiply, and it could end up being quite costly," Street said. "The exposure there for the county was what really concerned me a lot." While Street said Bellew's team deserved credit for working with the county to reach the agreement, he also thought the county's actions over the past year had made a difference. The Sheriff's Office launched a new pretrial release program -- which is now barely a year old -- designed to keep more defendants charged with low-level crimes out of jail while they were awaiting trial, Street said. And in September, the Sullivan County Commission agreed to use an $80 million, 20-year bond to fund an expansion and renovations of the jail. "The main part of their suit . . . was due to the overcrowding situation at the jail and the problems at the jail," Street said. "You could see that we were making improvements. I think that helped, definitely." Meanwhile, the attorney said, over the course of 2020, the county faced six wrongful death cases -- a record number. "We don't see a lot of those. . . . I don't think I've had four or five or six, not very many, in 26 years [of serving as the county attorney], and all of a sudden I've got six at one time," Street said. He listed them. One concerned a man who was allegedly shot and killed by law enforcement officers after shooting at them. Two focused on the treatment of county jail inmates who both appeared to have died by suicide. Another took issue with how county EMS workers treated a man who died after being sedated for an oral surgery. And there was a county employee whose car strayed over a traffic lane line in Blountville, colliding head-on with another car and killing the woman in it. Street said the sixth case, which was about an EMS stretcher that had collapsed under a man who later died, hadn't actually been filed as a lawsuit. But he said he was including it in his mental list, since he'd heard from some lawyers who were interested in helping a plaintiff sue the county over it. Street said he was hesitant to comment on the financial risks those cases pose to the county because wrongful death suits are extremely sensitive. But he reiterated that facing so many of those cases at once is "really kind of odd" for the county. [GN] TEACHERS INVESTMENT: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Haley ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MELISSA HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Case No. 17-cv-855, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order: 1. granting Haley's motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), with Haley as class representative and the firms of Berger Montague PC and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel; and 2. granting Haley's motion to amend the complaint and class certification motion. Haley seeks to amend her complaint and class certification motion to add two additional named plaintiffs and class representatives. The Court granted the request, saying Haley was diligent in seeking to add two new plaintiffs, and their addition to the case will not unduly prejudice TIAA. Haley brings this putative class action against TIAA, alleging that TIAA engaged in prohibited transactions with the Washington University Retirement Savings Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). After the Court dismissed several of the claims in an earlier complaint, Haley filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Court then denied TIAA's motion to dismiss the operative complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike certain class allegations. The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the said Court's order by Judge Oetken. The appellate case is captioned as Haley v. Teachers Investment and Annuity Association of America, Case No. 20-4117, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Dec. 9, 2020. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is represented by: Jaime Santos, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 E-mail: jsantos@goodwinprocter.com Plaintiff-Respondent Melissa Haley, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ellen Noteware, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: enoteware@bm.net - and - Shanon Jude Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net - and - Ryan Hecht, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: rhecht@schneiderwallace.com - and - John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com TRANSUNION LLC: Sheppard Mullin Attorney Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Anna S. McLean, Esq. -- amclean@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 16, 2020 in TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez on the question of "[w]hether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered." Ramirez will give the high court the opportunity to clarify how Article III standing requirements apply to class members in class actions. Sergio L. Ramirez sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, claiming a car dealer refused to sell him a car after a credit check by TransUnion incorrectly stated he was listed on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") database. Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC, 951 F.3d 1008, 1016-1017 (9th Cir. 2020). OFAC keeps a list of individuals, including terrorists, with whom US companies cannot engage in business for national security reasons. Ramirez sued on behalf of himself and more than 8,000 others alleged to be falsely identified on credit checks as individuals flagged by OFAC. Id. at 1017. The plaintiffs argued that TransUnion did not ensure accuracy by cross-checking the names on OFAC's database's list with other information. Id. at 1022. The district court certified a class under F.R.C.P. Rule 23 and denied TransUnion's motion to decertify, even though only plaintiff Ramirez established that (1) the false OFAC information had actually been disseminated to a potential creditor and (2) credit was denied as a result. Id. at 1033. At trial, a jury awarded plaintiff and the class more than $60 million in damages, including $984.22 in statutory damages and $6,353.08 in punitive damages per class member. Id. at 1022. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's award of statutory damages, but reduced the amount of punitive damages from $52 million to $32 million. Id. at 1037. TransUnion filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted on December 16, 2020. In considering Article III standing, the high court will have the opportunity to address a question it left unanswered in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1542 (2016). There, the Supreme Court ruled a "concrete" injury is required to establish standing under Article III, even where an injury has otherwise been established for statutory purposes under FCRA. Id. The Court did not address whether the concrete injury requirement applies just to the named representative plaintiff or also to class members in a certified class action. Id. at 1547 n.6. In Ramirez, TransUnion argues that class members lacked standing because there was no evidence introduced at trial that anyone other than Ramirez was turned down for a loan. Another 1,853 class members had their credit reports containing the false OFAC information disclosed to a third party, while there was no evidence that anyone saw the remaining approximately 6,300 class members' credit reports with the OFAC flag. Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC, 951 F.3d at 1028. Applying Spokeo, the Ninth Circuit agreed with TransUnion that Article III standing requirements applied to each class member, but found that all of the 8,185 class members had standing on the basis that the misleading reports were "available" to lenders, which created "a material risk of harm." Id. at 1027. Notably, Judge McKeown dissented from this part of the panel's ruling, reasoning that only the 1,853 members whose information was actually disseminated suffered a concrete injury. Id. at 1038. Whether the Ninth Circuit's views on class member standing survive the scrutiny of the Supreme Court remains to be seen. When the Court addressed Article III standing in Spokeo, the decision requiring a concrete injury for class representative standing was reached 6-2, and three new justices are now on the Court. Whether class members must establish standing by submitting evidence of actual, concrete injury -- as opposed to the mere "risk" thereof -- could well be a game-changer for defendants facing class actions where the named plaintiff has a sympathetic but unique story and few, if any, absent class members were harmed. *Michael Lundholm, a law clerk in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office, contributed to this article. [GN] TRI-GRAM EDUCATION: Fails to Pay Wages & Bonus, Duffin et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE DUFFIN, ALANA DUDLEY, APRIL MACLEISH, and KAREN MORROW, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRI-GRAM EDUCATION PARTNERS LLC d/b/a HARRIS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01724-UNA (D. Del., December 18, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as instructors, bring this complaint on behalf of a class defined as "all employees of the Defendant at any time between 2019 and the present who were victims of the Defendant's policy and/or practice of requiring employees to meet at a defined job site and travel in an employer vehicle to a different job site, and not receive compensation for the time travelled." According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were promised by the Defendant to eventually pay them their wages and a 20% bonus if they continued to work for no pay. However, the Defendant failed to fulfill its promise. As a result, the Plaintiff lost income and employment opportunities after the Defendant never fulfilled its promise, thereby causing them to suffer damages. Tri-gram Education Partners LLC d/b/a Harris School of Business is a for-profit college with locations in the northeast United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald G. Poliquin, Esq. THE POLIQUIN FIRM, LLC 1475 S. Governor Ave. Dover, DE 19904 Telephone: (302) 702-5001 TRITERRAS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Probes for Securities Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf of shareholders of Triterras, Inc. resulting from allegations that Triterras might have issued misleading information to the investing public. If you purchased Triterras securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit TRIT Shareholder Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. On December 17, 2020, Triterras announced that "a statutory demand for payment from [. . .] Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") was filed by a creditor of Rhodium on December 1, 2020 pursuant to the Singapore Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act." Triterras described Rhodium in its announcement as "instrumental to the initial launch of the Company's Kratos platform and the platform's attractiveness to the commodities trading and trade financing communities[.]" On this news, Triterras's stock price fell $4.11 per share, or 31.14%, to close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020 If you purchased Triterras securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/triterrasinc-trit-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-346/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] TYSON FOODS: Court Junks Second Amended Peterson Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the second amended complaint captioned Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., was dismissed. On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information services provider, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2019. The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al. Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, and stabilize the wholesale price for beef, as well as on behalf of a putative class of commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef. On September 28, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Second Amended Fed Cattle Class Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the second amended complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, was dismissed. On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis, importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand, and closing and idling plants. In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district courts. All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019. The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the court granted on September 28, 2020. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint. Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. UGI CORP: Agreement Reached with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs -------------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the Partnership and counsel for the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a joint statement with the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of the remaining classes and plaintiffs, subject to court approval. Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Missouri District Court. As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings, including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District Court. The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was upheld by the Eighth Circuit. On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue those claims. On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten states and the District of Columbia. On October 2, 2019, the Partnership reached an agreement to resolve the claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs; the agreement received final court approval on June 18, 2020. On September 18, 2020, the Partnership and counsel for the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a joint statement with the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of the remaining classes and plaintiffs, subject to court approval. The company said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on our financial statement." UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy products and related services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through four segments: AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UNITED STATES: Court Rules in Favor of Radiation-Exposed Veterans ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Laforge at counterpunch.org reports that in a major class action ruling issued December 17, the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Washington, DC has ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to re-examine how it evaluates disability claims from veterans exposed to deadly alpha radiation during cleanup operations following a disastrous nuclear weapons accident at Palomares, Spain. The Veterans Legal Services Clinic of Yale Law School, which since 2016 has assisted in litigating the case, Skaar v. Wilkie, along with the New York Legal Assistance Group, announced the decision. The ruling follows oral arguments made September 2, 2020, and comes one year after the Court's historic decision to certify "class action" status for the veterans of the disaster. On Jan. 17, 1966, during an airborne refueling gone wrong, an Air Force B-52 bomber exploded over the village of Palomares. Seven crewmembers were killed and four hydrogen bombs were thrown to the Earth. Upon impact, conventional explosives inside two of the H-bombs detonated, blasting two giant craters and spreading as much as 22 pounds highly radioactive, carcinogenic pulverized plutonium across the Spanish village and countryside. (See Dec. 18 report) In its new decision, the Court said the VA violated federal law requiring that its assessment of veterans' radiation exposures be based on sound science. The VA has so far relied on faulty methods to deny disability benefits to veterans for radiation-related illnesses caused by the nuclear weapon disaster, the legal services clinic said, calling the decision "a long-awaited step toward recognizing the Palomares veterans' service and ensuring they have access to the benefits they earned," it said. Even a single particle of plutonium if inhaled or ingested can cause cancer. The injured veterans are led by Chief Master Sergeant Victor Skaar (USAF, Ret.) of Nixa, Missouri, who participated in the clean-up. Skaar and the class argue that the VA's radiation exposure methodology "ignored 98 percent of the radiation measurements taken from veterans after the incident," an error so grave that, "Dr. von Hippel and even the VA's own consultant have faulted the method," the law clinic said. Skaar and at least 1,500 others were sent to clean up plutonium-contaminated debris and lived amidst the wreckage and the plutonium dust for weeks -- handling it, cleaning it from clothes, washing it off of village surfaces, placing contaminated soil in barrels, and even incinerating truckloads of poisoned debris. Now, "many of the veterans of have radiation-related illnesses that require medical treatment. Others have died from these conditions . . . " the law clinic said. Referring to a December 2017 report by Princeton University physicist Frank von Hippel about 26 GIs who were identified in 1966 as having received the highest exposures, the Court wrote: "Dr. von Hippel concluded that ‘The Air Force's dose estimates have huge uncertainties and the maximum doses incurred by those not in the "High 26" could be hundreds of times higher than those that the Air Force has recommended to the VA for determination of benefits.'" The Court said that the VA never explained why it adopted the flawed methodology." The Court's opinion written by Judge Michael Allen admonished the Board of Veterans' Appeals, declaring that it may not "abdicate its responsibility to assess whether the evidence before it is ‘sound.'" The Court ordered the VA to review the parties' evidence and provide considered analysis of the methodology to ensure that only sound scientific evidence is used to determine veterans' eligibility for disability benefits. In a statement to the law clinic, John Rowan, Air Force Veteran and National President of Vietnam Veterans of America said, "Thanks to the Court's decision and the continuing advocacy of Mr. Skaar and other class members, the VA must now justify its practice of arbitrarily dismissing the exceedingly high levels of radiation these veterans encountered and continue to suffer from . . . [and] fulfill its duty under law to assist these veterans and ensure their claims are evaluated using methods that are both scientifically and legally sound." Startlingly, the Air Force has never included the weeks-long Palomares plutonium cleanup on its list of "radiation risk activities" which it uses to rule on disability claims, in spite of the its own 1967 determination that service members' "health is in no jeopardy from retention of radioactive materials as a result of participation in the [Palomares] operation." Asked how the Air Force can keep such a radiation-heavy clean-up operation off the list, the law clinic's Molly Petchnik told me list was drawn up long ago and the military is reluctant to expand it. The official list in the Code of Federal Regulations (38 CFR § 3.309) does recognize four radiation activities since 1966, including service at H-bomb production sites in Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tenn. in 1991; and underground H-bomb test service on Amchitka Island, Alaska in 1974. [GN] UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Missouri River Flooding ------------------------------------------------------------------- omaha.com reports that the stakes just got higher in the costly battle between hundreds of landowners along the Missouri River and the federal government. The law firm that has successfully sued the government over flooding caused by endangered species projects filed a second lawsuit that opens the door for more landowners to claim damages. About 400 landowners signed onto the first lawsuit, the mass action Ideker case that has been going on for about eight years. This latest case is a class action lawsuit intended to allow those who didn't join the first lawsuit to get compensated, said Dan Boulware, attorney for the Polsinelli law firm. The difference between a mass action and class action is that each individual plaintiff has to prove his or her case under a mass action. The number of landowners potentially eligible under a class action is unknown, Boulware said. In a mid-December ruling in the Ideker case, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge Nancy Firestone said any other landowners had until Dec. 31 to lodge a claim. In the roughly two weeks since then, the firm was able to sign up 60-plus property owners, Boulware said. "It's been an outpouring of people who want to join," Boulware said. "We had to cut it off to get it filed." If the class action lawsuit is certified to move forward, additional landowners can join on, he said. The U.S. Justice Department had no comment, as the matter remains under litigation. At issue in these lawsuits is whether the Corps of Engineers contributed to flooding as it undertook projects to better ensure the viability of threatened and endangered species. The corps has said its actions didn't add to flooding, but Firestone concluded the corps had done so without compensating landowners. And that, she said, is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits taking property without compensation. Among the property owners in the new class action suit is Mike Bean, an Omahan who owns 1,072 acres along the river south of Nebraska City. Most of his property is farmed, but nearly a third is set aside for wildlife. Bean said he was vaguely aware of the earlier lawsuit, but news about the landowners' victory against the corps caught his attention. Repeat flooding, especially the catastrophic floods of 2011 and 2019, have damaged both farmland and natural habitat, he said. Returning the farmland to production has been costly, he said, and flood damage has killed off the wooded grasslands that harbored wildlife. (The judge excluded the 2011 flooding from any liability claims, and the 2019 flood wasn't part of the first lawsuit.) "It's been a terrible injustice to the farmers and just as much an injustice to the wildlife," Bean said. The corps is at the center of the lawsuit because it's the federal entity that Congress has tasked with taming and managing the river so that it could be used for commercial boat traffic and to reduce flooding in the valley. Where it was once a multichanneled corridor that meandered across the miles-wide valley, it is now a narrow, straighter, single channel. Massive dams on the upper river and engineered constrictions on the lower river attempt to hold it in place. The corps' job is to manage and care for the dams upstream and restrictions downstream. Endangered species come into play because a federal law, the Endangered Species Act, requires the corps to take those species into account in its actions. Years ago, a federal judge told the corps it had to comply with that law. To that end, the corps undertook various projects intended to provide a more natural flow along the river. Those projects, Firestone has ruled, led to an increase in flooding. On average, the corps' flooding has decreased the value of land along the river by about 25%, Firestone ruled. Property owners should receive corresponding compensation, she said. The class action lawsuit addresses only that portion of the river from Burt County, Nebraska, to Leavenworth County, Kansas -- most Nebraska and Iowa riverside land. Property owners east into the interior of Missouri and north into the Dakotas are not eligible to participate. The congressional delegations in Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas have called on the corps to settle with landowners, and that's something Boulware would like to see happen. This class action lawsuit, known as the Milne case for its lead plaintiff, is likely to add to that pressure. "This certainly raises the stakes, because it adds more people," Boulware said. [GN] UNITED STATES: Filing of Fourth Amended Nassiri Complaint Allowed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOHAMMAD NASSIRI, DIEP THI NGUYEN, ANH VAN THAI, DUC HUYNH, TRAI CHAU, HOI CUU QUAN NHAN VNCH, and ROES 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DUKE (DUC) TRAN; SSA-AGENT DOES 1-20; STATE AND/OR LOCAL AGENTS CDI DOES 21-40; MARY HAGER, Supervisor; NICHOLAS PILCHER, SSA Agent; SUNDEEP PATEL, SSA Agent; WILLIAM VILLASENOR; and DULCE SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiff Thai's Motion for Leave to Amend Class Action Complaint. On March 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security, the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), and individual and Doe SSA agents. The Plaintiffs brought federal and state law claims arising from SSA agents' alleged harassment and intimidation of Vietnamese, Iranian, and Somalian refugees and immigrants and retaliation against the Plaintiffs for filing affidavits in Phan, et al. v. Colvin, Case No. 13-cv-2036-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), appeal dismissed, 14-55514 (9th Cir. 2015). On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. On Dec. 27, 2015, they filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On Aug. 18, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. In relevant part, it dismissed all claims by Plaintiffs Tho Van Ha, Tommy Nguyen, and Don Doan with prejudice. On Oct. 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On Dec. 21, 2016, the Court issued an Order allowing the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming only the Defendants whom the Court did not dismiss and the Defendants identified through discovery, and including only the sixth (Equal Protection), eleventh (First Amendment), and thirteenth (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment) causes of action that the Court did not previously dismiss. On Jan. 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Thai, Mohammad Nassiri, Diep Thi Nguyen, Duc Huynh, Trai Chau, Hoi Cuu Quan Nhan VNCH, and Roes 1 through 100 filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants Commissioner, Nicholas Pilcher, Sundeep Patel, William Villasenor, Dulce Sanchez, Duke (Duc) Tran, Mary Hagar, Does 1-20, and State and/or Local Agents CDI1 Does 21-40. In the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendants for 1) retaliating against the Plaintiffs for filing a class action and affidavits in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; 2) preventing the Plaintiffs from seeking legal representation in violation of the First Amendment rights to associational privacy and free speech; and 3) conducting illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. On July 19, 2017, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims against the Commissioner as moot. On March 15, 2017, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez for the Plaintiffs' failure to allege facts that Villasenor and Sanchez acted under color of state law. On Jan. 3, 2018, the Court entered an Order denying reconsideration of the Commissioner Order and the Villasenor and Sanchez Order and dismissing the Plaintiffs' remaining claims against Mary Hager, Duke (Duc) Tran, Nicholas Pilcher, and Sundeep Patel with prejudice. On Jan. 4, 2018, a Clerk's Judgment was entered. Plaintiffs Thai, Don Doan, and Tommy Nguyen appealed. On April 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate reversing the dismissal of Plaintiff Thai's claims for damages against Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez; reversing the dismissal of Plaintiffs Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen's claim for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, and otherwise affirming the decision of the district court. On April 24, 2020, remaining Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez filed an Answer to the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On Oct. 7, 2020, Plaintiff Thai filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Class Action Complaint. Plaintiff Thai seeks to again include Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen as Plaintiffs, add County of Los Angeles as a Defendant, add factual allegations, and add claims for race discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, interference with contractual relationship, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of civil rights under section 52.1 of the California Civil Code. On Nov. 2, 2020, Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez filed an Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend. Among other things, they contend that (i) amendment would be futile, (ii) Tommy Ngyuen lacks standing, (iii) there is no basis for adding additional claims under Sections 1983, and (iv) the Plaintiff should not be allowed to add the County as a Defendant because the Plaintiff unduly delayed in adding the County, and the statute of limitations has expired. On Nov. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Reply. The Plaintiff contends that (i) the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Tommy Nguyen has a viable Fourth Amendment claim, (ii) the proposed amendment does not add any claims against any new unknown agents, (iii) the proposed amendment includes facts discovered over a year after filing the Third Amended Class Action Complaint that support the claims for interference with civil rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (iv) adding the County as a party is warranted because the Plaintiff did not know that the Defendants were supervised by the County rather than by the SSA. Judge Hayes defers consideration of the Defendants' challenges to the merits of the proposed fourth amended class action complaint until after the amended pleading is filed. The Defendants have not made "a strong showing" they would be prejudiced by the amendment or that the remaining factors under Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) warrant deviating from the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Accordingly, the Judge granted Motion for Leave to Amend Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs will file the proposed fourth amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Motion within 14 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ltdblg from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Mayle and Rulong Sue Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Joseph Mayle and Kraig Rulong v. United States, Case No. 1:20-cv-01818-LAS (Ct. Fed. Cl., Dec. 10, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for damages and other relief pursuant to the Back Pay Act and the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to remedy the Defendant's willful and unlawful violations of law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has not compensated Plaintiffs with the hazardous duty pay differential for exposure to virulent biological or the environmental differential for exposure to hazardous microorganisms, pursuant to Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The Defendant has failed to provide hazardous duty and environmental differential pay to the Plaintiffs when they work with or in close proximity to COVID-19 on objects, surfaces, and/or individuals infected with COVID-19. Because Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiffs hazardous duty pay and/or environmental pay differentials, Defendant has not included such pay when calculating the Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating and paying overtime compensation under the FLSA. Plaintiffs Joseph Mayle and Kraig Rulong are currently employed by the Defendant as a correctional counselor and maintenance foreman, respectively. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan K. Mechak, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 UNITED STATES: More Missouri River Landowners Join New Flood Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Gaarder Omaha at journalstar.com reports that the stakes just got higher in the costly battle between hundreds of landowners along the Missouri River and the federal government. The law firm that has successfully sued the government over flooding caused by endangered species projects filed a second lawsuit that opens the door for more landowners to claim damages. About 400 landowners signed onto the first lawsuit, the mass action Ideker case that has been going on for about eight years. This latest case is a class action lawsuit intended to allow those who didn't join the first lawsuit to get compensated, said Dan Boulware, attorney for the Polsinelli law firm. The difference between a mass action and class action is that each individual plaintiff has to prove his or her case under a mass action. The number of landowners potentially eligible under a class action is unknown, Boulware said. In a mid-December ruling in the Ideker case, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge Nancy Firestone said any other landowners had until Dec. 31 to lodge a claim. In the roughly two weeks since then, the firm was able to sign up 60-plus property owners, Boulware said. "It's been an outpouring of people who want to join," Boulware said. "We had to cut it off to get it filed." If the class action lawsuit is certified to move forward, additional landowners can join on, he said. The U.S. Justice Department had no comment, as the matter remains under litigation. At issue in these lawsuits is whether the Corps of Engineers contributed to flooding as it undertook projects to better ensure the viability of threatened and endangered species. The corps has said its actions didn't add to flooding, but Firestone concluded the corps had done so without compensating landowners. And that, she said, is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits taking property without compensation. Among the property owners in the new class-action suit is Mike Bean, an Omahan who owns 1,072 acres along the river south of Nebraska City. Most of his property is farmed, but nearly a third is set aside for wildlife. Bean said he was vaguely aware of the earlier lawsuit, but news about the landowners' victory against the corps caught his attention. Repeat flooding, especially the catastrophic floods of 2011 and 2019, have damaged both farmland and natural habitat, he said. Returning the farmland to production has been costly, he said, and flood damage has killed off the wooded grasslands that harbored wildlife. (The judge excluded the 2011 flooding from any liability claims, and the 2019 flood wasn't part of the first lawsuit.) "It's been a terrible injustice to the farmers and just as much an injustice to the wildlife," Bean said. The corps is at the center of the lawsuit because it's the federal entity that Congress has tasked with taming and managing the river so that it could be used for commercial boat traffic and to reduce flooding in the valley. Where it was once a multichanneled corridor that meandered across the miles-wide valley, it is now a narrow, straighter, single channel. Massive dams on the upper river and engineered constrictions on the lower river attempt to hold it in place. The corps' job is to manage and care for the dams upstream and restrictions downstream. Endangered species come into play because a federal law, the Endangered Species Act, requires the corps to take those species into account in its actions. Years ago, a federal judge told the corps it had to comply with that law. To that end, the corps undertook various projects intended to provide a more natural flow along the river. Those projects, Firestone has ruled, led to an increase in flooding. On average, the corps' flooding has decreased the value of land along the river by about 25%, Firestone ruled. Property owners should receive corresponding compensation, she said. The class action lawsuit addresses only that portion of the river from Burt County to Leavenworth County, Kansas - most Nebraska and Iowa riverside land. Property owners east into the interior of Missouri and north into the Dakotas are not eligible to participate. The congressional delegations in Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas have called on the corps to settle with landowners, and that's something Boulware would like to see happen. This class action lawsuit, known as the Milne case for its lead plaintiff, is likely to add to that pressure. "This certainly raises the stakes, because it adds more people," Boulware said. [GN] UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT: Burgess Appeals Ruling to 11th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Shaeda Burgess filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SHAEDA BURGESS, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, d/b/a UNIVERSAL ORLANDO RESORT, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-02156-WWB-LRH, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit targets Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires persons that accept debt cards or credit cards for the transaction of business to truncate certain card number information on printed receipts provided to consumers. The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Shaeda Burgess v. Universal City Development Par, Case No. 20-14605, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Dec. 8, 2020.[BN] The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before January 19, 2021; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before December 22, 2020 as to Appellant Shaeda Burgess; and -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before January 5, 2021 as to Appellee Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. Plaintiff-Appellant SHAEDA BURGESS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: James Salvatore Giardina, Esq. THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP 3104 W Waters Ave Ste 200 Tampa, FL 33614 Telephone: (813) 413-5610 - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, PA 2750 N 29th Ave Ste 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Defendant-Appellee UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership d.b.a. Universal Orlando Resort, is represented by: Joel Christopher Griswold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S Orange Ave Ste 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Faces McElroy Labor Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Protection Service, LP. The case is captioned as Angela McElroy and Shani McElroy, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Protection Service, LP, Case No. 34-2020-00290233-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 9, 2020). The case arises from employment-related issues. Universal Protection Service Inc. provides security solutions. It offers access control, closed circuit television, fire alarm, intrusion detection, physical security, parking equipment, and visitor management systems. Universal Protection Service serves corporate, airports, educational, and residential sectors throughout United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC, 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: scole@scalaw.com UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Sweetland-Gil Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CERENA SWEETLAND-GIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, Case No. STK-CV-U0E-2019-0014682, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02545-MCE-KJN to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay hourly and separately apart from the piece, failure to pay wages for all hours worked; failure to pay compensation due upon discharge from employment; failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices. University of the Pacific is a private non-profit university located in Stockton, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nathan W. Austin, Esq. Christopher J. Truxler, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 341-0404 Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 E-mail: nathan.austin@jacksonlewis.com christopher.truxler@jacksonlewis.com UNIVERSITY OF THE POTOMAC: Hedges Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------------- University of the Potomac is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University Of The Potomac, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10852 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020). University of the Potomac offers career-oriented programs on campus and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal USHEALTH ADVISORS: Faegre Drinker Lawyers Discuss TCPA Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marsha J. Indych, Esq. -- marsha.indych@faegredrinker.com -- and Renée M. Dudek, Esq. -- renee.dudek@faegredrinker.com -- of Faegre Drinker, in an article for The National Law Review, report that a recent denial of a professional plaintiff's motion for class certification shows that, irrespective of whether such plaintiffs have standing to sue on their own behalf, courts are increasingly skeptical that contrived claims are amenable to class treatment. See Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00245-P, 2020 WL 7186380, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2020). The Facts The plaintiff in this case, Aaron Hirsch, was a real estate agent who used his cell phone for both business and personal use. He had listed his cell phone number on the national Do-Not-Call Registry, but also advertised his business using his cell phone number and even took partial tax deductions for his cell phone. Eventually, Hirsch and his friend Max Maccoby, a lawyer, developed a plan to profit through the TCPA. Hirsch would log any telemarketing calls that he received, and Maccoby would review the log for potential TCPA litigation. Through this scheme, Hirsch learned to feign interest to elicit additional calls from the caller or the company on whose behalf the caller was allegedly calling. One of the calls Hirsch received was from a lead-generation vendor called Dosys, who was allegedly calling on behalf of USHA, to ask if Hirsch was interested in buying health insurance. Although Hirsch was not interested, he said he was and scheduled a call with a USHA agent. When the USHA agent called Hirsch as scheduled, Hirsch first confirmed the call was from USHA, and then asked to be placed on USHA's internal do-not-call list. USHA complied. This pattern repeated three more times -- with Dosys calling Hirsch, Hirsch feigning interest and scheduling a call from USHA, USHA calling Hirsch, and then Hirsch asking to be placed on USHA's internal do-not-call list. Hirsch then brought a putative class action against USHA, alleging TCPA violations and claims under Maryland's analogous statute. USHA brought counterclaims against Hirsch for fraud. Eventually, Hirsch moved to certify a Maryland subclass, as well as a TCPA class consisting of: All natural persons in the United States who, from March 29, 2014 to the date of the Court's Order granting class certification: (a) received more than one telephone solicitation call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of USHealth more than 31 days after registering the landline, wireless, cell or mobile telephone number on which they received those calls with the National Do-Not-Call Registry, or (b) received one or more calls after registering the landline, wireless, cell, or mobile telephone number on which they received the calls with USHealth's Internal Do-Not-Call list. Id. at *2. The proposed TCPA class likely included more than 100,000 members. USHA opposed class certification, arguing that Hirsch lacked Article III standing and also failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule 23. The Decision USHA argued that Hirsch lacked constitutional standing because he did not suffer a concrete injury-in-fact as required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, it argued that he wanted to receive the calls in order to use them as an opportunity to obtain money, and that they helped rather than hurt him. The court rejected this argument, reasoning that because Hirsch was not compensated for his time on the calls and because he asked to be placed on the national and internal do-not-call lists, he had sufficient injury to establish Article III standing. The court also rejected the contention that Hirsch could not adequately represent a class because his close associate Maccoby -- who helped him cook up the claims -- was counsel of record. Although the court agreed that the Hirsch-Maccoby relationship "merits review," it concluded that USHA "fail[ed] to explain how that relationship creates a conflict of interest for counsel or as between Hirsch and the putative class." Id. at * 5. But the court was more skeptical of whether Hirsch could satisfy the requirements of commonality, typicality, or predominance under Rule 23. To establish commonality, the court explained, Hirsch must show that there is at least one common question that will resolve a central issue in each class member's claims. And common questions alone do not cut it -- the common questions must generate common answers that resolve issues central to the dispute. The court also explained that certification under the TCPA was only appropriate where the plaintiff has advanced a viable theory employing generalized proof to establish liability with respect to the class involved. Hirsch proposed three common questions of law or fact: 1. defendant's agents (a) completed more than one telephone solicitation call (b) in a 12-month period (c) more than 31 days after the landline, wireless, cell or mobile telephone number to which the call was placed was registered with the NDNC; 2. defendant (a) completed one or more calls (b) to a landline, wireless, cell, or mobile telephone number; (c) which was requested to be registered on USHealth's IDNC; and 3. defendant is vicariously liable for those calls; and the violations were knowing or willful. Id. at *6. The court rejected them all, reasoning that, even if established, USHA would not necessarily be liable under the TCPA because at least some of the calls might have been permitted under the statute. For example, there would be open and more individualized, fact-intensive questions of whether class members had consented to the calls; whether the numbers called were residential; and, because various agents were used in differing circumstances, whether defendants were vicariously liable for those calls. Accordingly, the court concluded that Hirsch had failed to advance a viable theory of generalized proof to establish liability, and therefore commonality was not satisfied. The court then turned to the typicality requirement, which asks whether other class members have the same or similar injury based on same or similar conduct. It reasoned that Hirsch's claims were not typical because he repeatedly scheduled calls from USHA solely for the purpose of requesting to be placed on its internal do-not-call list. Indeed, under Hirsch's pleaded facts, USHA would never have contacted him but for his requests, which is "highly atypical." Id. at 11. Additionally, the fact that Hirsch was defending fraud claims also was atypical. Accordingly, the court concluded that absent class members might suffer if Hirsch were preoccupied with defending a claim that was unique to Hirsch. Id. The court also concluded that Hirsch's claims were atypical because his scheme might be problematic before a jury, because other class members might have agreed to arbitration, and because he manufactured his claims with the help of his lawyer friend. "Although these issues alone would not defeat typicality, the confluence of these and the other issues create a class representative whose unique issues threaten the absent class members." Id. For those reasons, the court concluded that Hirsch's claims and defenses were atypical of the class members' claims and defenses. The court then addressed Rule 23's predominance requirement, and concluded that Hirsch had not shown that common questions predominate over individualized questions. In so concluding, the court echoed much of its analysis regarding the commonality requirement. It also explained that "Hirsch and his behavior would permeate [a] trial." Although at trial Hirsch would focus on USHA's TCPA training, scrubbing policies, and lead-gathering methods, "everything falls back to Hirsch's behavior that created the dispute -- Hirsch requested and scheduled four of five alleged calls." Id. at *13. The court went on to emphasize that "[t]his is not simply a case brought by a professional plaintiff, although it may be that too. Hirsch caused (arguably solicited) Defendants' Agents to call him. The Court does not consider whether this meets fraud's prima facie elements, but factually, Hirsch's acts form this case's inescapable foundation." Accordingly, the court concluded that individual issues would likely predominate. Because Hirsch failed to establish commonality, typicality, or predominance under Rule 23, the court denied his motion for class certification. The Takeaway Although the court in Hirsch did not condemn the practice of professional plaintiffs per se, it did not mince words in distinguishing the manufactured claim of a professional plaintiff from that of an ordinary plaintiff who is not lying in wait. It remains to be seen whether more courts will deny class certification because the putative representative is a professional plaintiff, but Hirsch shows that there are good reasons for courts to do so. [GN] VENTRA SANDUSKY: Faces Wobser Suit in Ohio Over FMLA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Wobser, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on Behalf of the Class defined herein v. Ventra Sandusky, LLC and Flex-N-Gate Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02796-JRK (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for their interference with the use of unpaid leave as guaranteed by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). According to the complaint, the Defendants interfered with the use of FMLA leave when leave is planned or anticipated because the Defendants require Plaintiff and the members of the punitive Class to take time off and lose pay simply to receive the forms necessary to apply for advanced FMLA leave. Ventra hired Wobser in approximately April 9, 2012 to serve as a technician. The Plaintiff has worked more than 1250 hours in the 12 months preceding several request for medical leave in the past year. Ventra Sandusky, LLC is an auto parts manufacturer in Ohio. Flex-N-Gate is an American automotive parts supplier headquartered in Urbana, Illinois with manufacturing operations across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis E. Murray, Jr. Joseph A. Galea, Esq. MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A. 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, Ohio 44870-2517 Telephone: (419) 624-3126 Facsimile: (419) 624-0707 E-mail: dmj@murrayandmurray.com jag@murrayandmurray.com VISA INC: Appeal on Grant of Class Certification Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the defendants sought permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the decision of the district court in granting the motion for class certification. Following their initial complaint filed on March 8, 2016, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and Grove Liquors LLC filed an amended class action complaint on July 15, 2016, against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Mastercard, Discover, American Express, EMVCo and certain financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The amended complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty or otherwise rejected payment card transactions from defendants to the purported class of merchants, defined as those merchants throughout the U.S. who have been subjected to the "Liability Shift" since October 2015. Plaintiffs claim that the so-called "Liability Shift" violates Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. EMVCo and the financial institution defendants were dismissed, and the matter was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which has clarified that this case is not part of MDL 1720. On August 28, 2020, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 11, 2020, defendants sought permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the decision. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Bid for Preliminary OK of Class Action Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement filed in the consumer class actions related to ATM access fees, is pending. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the same federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class actions challenging the rules, later combined, were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, Mastercard and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes. On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs in both cases filed motions for class certification. On October 5, 2020, plaintiffs in the case naming three financial institutions as defendants filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement reached with those financial institution defendants. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Class Status Bid in National ATM Council Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit filed by the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators, is still pending. In October 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators filed a purported class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and Mastercard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar Mastercard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VISA INC: Wal-Mart Canada Appeals Settlement Reached in Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal remains pending. Beginning in December 2010, a number of class action lawsuits were filed in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta against Visa Canada, Mastercard and ten financial institutions on behalf of merchants that accept payment by Visa and/or Mastercard credit cards. The actions allege a violation of Canada's price-fixing law and various common law claims based on separate Visa and Mastercard conspiracies in respect of default interchange and certain of the networks' rules. To date, five financial institutions have settled with the plaintiffs. In June 2017, Visa and Mastercard also reached settlements with the plaintiffs. Courts in each of the five provinces approved the settlements and Wal-Mart Canada and/or Home Depot of Canada Inc. filed notices of appeal of the decisions approving the settlements. The Courts of Appeal in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan rejected the appeals filed by Wal-Mart Canada and Home Depot of Canada Inc. Wal-Mart Canada and Home Depot of Canada Inc. sought leave to appeal those decisions and the Supreme Court of Canada denied those applications on March 26, 2020 (British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario) and October 29, 2020 (Saskatchewan). An appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal remains pending. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VIVINT SOLAR: Gallo FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Sandra Gallo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vivint Solar, Inc., Equifax Information Services LLC, and Does, 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIV DS 2023378, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 9, 2020. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and is assigned to Judge John W. Holcomb. Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company headquartered in Lehi, Utah. It is a residential solar provider that designs, installs and maintains photovoltaic systems. Vivint Solar operates in 23 U.S. states. Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Karen L. Wallace, Esq. Kelsey Lynn Kuberka, Esq. Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq. Nick Polis, Esq. Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com kwallace@toddflaw.com kkuberka@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com npolis@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: William Fred Norton, Esq. THE NORTON LAW FIRM 299 Third Street Suite 106 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 906-4900 Facsimile: (510) 906-4910 E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com - and - Meryl W. Roper, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 1180 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: mroper@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com - and - Michael Dietz Roth, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: mroth@kslaw.com VMWARE INC: Bid to Nix Lopez-Howarth Consolidated Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- VMware, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated Lopez-Howarth class action suit, is pending. On June 4, 2020, purported Pivotal stockholder Kenia Lopez filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court against Dell, VMware, Michael Dell, Robert Mee and Cynthia Gaylor. The claims include breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, all tied to VMware's acquisition of Pivotal. On July 16, 2020, purported Pivotal stockholder Stephanie Howarth filed a similar lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court against the same defendants asserting the same types of claims. These matters have been consolidated, and VMware filed a motion to dismiss on September 23, 2020. VMware said, "The Company is unable at this time to assess whether or to what extent it may be found liable and, if found liable, what the damages may be, and believes a loss is not probable and reasonably estimable. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these securities class actions." VMware, Inc. pioneered the development and application of virtualization technologies with x86 server-based computing, separating application software from the underlying hardware. The company is based in Palo Alto, California. VYSTAR CORP: Discovery in LaChapelle Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Robert LaChapelle. On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and 150). Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. The parties are now in the discovery process and the litigation is proceeding. Based on the current status of the matter, the Company is unable to determine an amount due, if any. Vystar Corporation creates natural rubber latex. The Company's product is used in an extensive range of products including balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives, foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment, sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as condoms, surgical and exam gloves. WALGREEN CO: Julian Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOY ANN JULIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20-CIV-05044, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on December 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-09446 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California's Business and Professions Code, the California Family Rights Act, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Walgreen Co. is a company that operates a pharmacy store chain in the United States, with its principal place of business located in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Bernice Diaz, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Telephone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com bernice.diaz@bclplaw.com - and – Daria Dub Carlson, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 E-mail: daria.carlson@bclplaw.com WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Suit in Calif. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- mynewsla.com reports that Warner Music Group was hit with a proposed class-action lawsuit over its alleged failure to reasonably safeguard the personal information of online customers. The 91-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles federal court, alleges unauthorized parties were able to execute a prolonged data breach that affected Warner's thousands of websites from roughly April 25 through Aug. 5 due to the major record label conglomerate's violation of its "duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices" in protecting its online payment systems. A WMG spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment. According to the plaintiff, Crescent City resident Linda Stevens, Warner became aware in August that an unauthorized party had possibly gained access to the personal information provided by customers when making online purchases. On or about Sept. 2, Warner disclosed the breach to a number of state attorneys general, and mailed a document titled "Notice of Data Breach" to customers, the suit says. Though the company said in its notice that it could not definitively confirm that a customer's personal information was affected, the company conceded "it is possible that it might have been as your transaction(s) occurred during the period of the compromise." During August, Stevens -- who gave her personal information to Warner when making a purchase on the company's e-commerce website -- says she was alerted to a series of at least eight unfamiliar, unauthorized charges to her bank credit card. As a result of the data breach and the unauthorized credit card transactions, she was compelled to independently utilize a credit monitoring service, according to the complaint. The exposure of her personal information "as a result of the WMG data breach has caused and placed her at imminent, immediate and continuing risk of financial harm and identity theft," the suit alleges. Warner owns and operates some of the largest and most renowned labels in the world, including Warner Records, Atlantic Records, Elektra Records and Rhino Entertainment. WMG also owns Warner Chappell Music, one of the world's largest music publishers. The WMG conglomerate also operates a number of e-commerce websites from which customers may purchase artist merchandise, records, and other music and entertainment paraphernalia. The suit aims to cover anyone who used their credit, debit or prepaid debit card on a website operated by Warner Music Group during the period of April 25 to Aug. 5. The plaintiff is seeking a court order compelling Warner to use appropriate cybersecurity methods and policies regarding the collection, storage, protection and disposal of personal data, an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and any other relief the court deems appropriate. [GN] WEBY CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Quezada Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10700 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. The Plaintiff alleges that when he most recently visited the Defendant's Website, www.gritrsports.com, in December 2020, the Defendant's Website denied him a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's Website allegedly lacked a variety of features and accommodations which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff added that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Weby Corp. is a gun and accessories manufacturing company that owns and operates the said Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Ave., Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com WELLS FARGO: Magill Files Suit in California State Court -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The case is captioned as NICHOLAS R. MAGILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. CGC20588327 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 7, 2020). The case arises from contract-related issues. A case management conference is set for May 12, 2021 before Judge Samuel K. Feng. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. Wells Fargo Bank serves commercial, retail, and institutional customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth Street - Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 254-6807 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com WELLS FARGO: Mitchell FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to W.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRISTOPHER LEE MITCHELL and VIRGINIA ELLISON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-02444, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 29, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02015-RJC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid off-the-clock wages, miscalculated overtime compensation, and deduction of hourly wages and overtime previously paid to employees in subsequent weeks. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a multinational financial service company headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com WORLD WRESTLING: Term Sheet Entered in Firefighters Suit -------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 20, 2020, that the company entered into a term sheet to settle the previously disclosed action titled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No. 1:20-cv-02031-JSR. On November 18, 2020, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. entered into a term sheet to settle the above-mentioned previously disclosed action. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged securities law violations by the Company, its current Chief Executive Officer and its former Co-Presidents, related to certain disclosures concerning the Company's business relationship in and with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Term Sheet was reached in connection with a voluntary mediation which involved the Plaintiffs and their counsel, the Company and its counsel, and the Company's insurance carriers. Aside from the Term Sheet, there will be other standard and customary terms of class action settlements in the stipulation of settlement. The settlement is subject to notice to the class and preliminary and final approval by the Court. The settlement will include a full release of all Defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit, and will not contain any admission of liability or admission as to the validity or truth of any or all allegations or claims by any of the Defendants. The Term Sheet provides for a settlement payment, subject to Court approval, of $39 million (inclusive of all Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs), all of which the Company expects will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company believes that resolving the matter is the right business decision and that it is prudent to end the protracted and uncertain class action process. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media, Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. YAMAHA GUITAR: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. YAMAHA GUITAR GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10451-RA (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's Website, shop.line6.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Yamaha Guitar Group, Inc. is a musical instruments manufacturing 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 ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the case, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., has tentatively scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification to April 15, 2021. A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against us alleges, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 2019. On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted our motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court. On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to our petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn filed a reply in support of our petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento for further proceedings. The court has tentatively scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification on April 15, 2021, and Defendant's tentative deadline to file an opposition to the motion on June 15, 2021. Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so." Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington. [*] Dozens of Class Actions Filed in U.S. Early Days of Pandemic ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julianna Thomas McCabe, Esq. -- jtmccabe@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, dozens of class action lawsuits were filed across a variety of industries in the United States -- with theories of liability ranging from hand sanitizer false-labeling allegations, cruise-line negligence claims, and airline ticket refund demands, to complaints about prisoner safety and alleged government takings. By mid-April 2020, we reported 72 such class actions had been filed nationwide. Eight months have since passed, and like the staggering rate of infection caused by the novel coronavirus, the early wave of related litigation has skyrocketed to upwards of 1,400 COVID-19 class actions. Cases span the country but are concentrated on the coasts and in big cities. The primary targets of this widespread litigation included property insurers who issued business interruption coverage to businesses impacted by coronavirus lockdowns; colleges and universities whose students are seeking refunds of tuition and fees related to campus closures; travel and entertainment industries (including the travel insurance industry), whose customers want refunds; and others. To date, life insurers have not seen a significant influx of this litigation. Risks may emerge in the future, however, given the national scope and wide-ranging theories asserted thus far and an anticipated evolution of the litigation as it matures. Labor and employment collective actions present one area of risk, with employees in many locations working exclusively from home, others returning to offices as the pandemic lingers, and still others engaged in hybrid working environments. Overtime practices, reductions in force, and the like may present enhanced risk as a result of COVID-19. Insurers should also be vigilant about consumer data security, policy lapses and related notices, and underwriting practices for new business. Best practices must be updated as necessary across business units and departments to account for the extremely active COVID-19 class action environment. With vaccines on the horizon, the end of the pandemic may be within sight, but the end of related litigation is much further in the future. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. 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 ***