/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210114.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 14, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 5
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Hunter Claims
3M COMPANY: Brierton Sues Over Health Risks of AFFF Exposure
3M COMPANY: Diprizio Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Ramsey Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Peterford Says
3M COMPANY: Gary Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Lane Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Majcherek Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Warrener Sues Over Health Risks of AFFF Exposure
AARP INC: Krukas "Medigap Policy" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ACAMAR PARTNERS: Laidlaw Challenges Proposed Merger With CarLotz
ALCON VISION: Reaches Class Action Settlement in Contact Lens Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Carpenters Securities Suit
AMERICAN NAT'L: Morrison Gets Final Approval of Class Settlement
APPLE INC: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Two Rule 23 Classes
ARIZONA: Satzman, et al. Seek to Certify Class of ADC Inmates
ASCENT RESOURCES: Eaton, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
AUBURN, WA: Kilman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
AUSTIN BUSINESS: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
BALANCE STAFFING: Faces Snipes Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
BARTON COLLEGE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Piper Sues Over Crop Input Market Monopoly
BIEGLER GMBH: Munderloh Files RICO Suit in D. Arizona
BIOGEN INC: Faces Shapiro Suit Over 28% Drop in Share Price
BLACK THAI: Faces Gonzales Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
BLACKBAUD INC: Bishop Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
BLACKBAUD INC: Lofton Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
BMS CAT: Faces Palacios Suit Over Cleaning Staff's Unpaid Wages
BOSCH EMISSIONS: Reaches Class Action Settlement on Emission Claims
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
BOW WOW PROPERTIES: Howard Suit Remanded to St. Louis Cir. Court
BRENTWOOD HOME: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
C-LINE PRODUCTS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CAIRN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALAIS FOREST: Hopkins Sues Over Asst. Managers' Unpaid Overtime
CASSA GROVE: Turizo TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CENTRAL GARDEN: Warr Sues Over Over Illegal Background Check
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Promotional Appeals Court Ruling to 10th Cir.
CO-CO NAILS BREWSTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guaman Claims
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Suit Removed to W.D. Virginia
CONDUENT STATE: Sanchez Files Suit in D.N.J. Over Breach of Contact
COVIA HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 8 Deadline
CUSTOM WIRE: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
DECORPRICE CORP: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISH NETWORK: Fuentes "HSSA" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
DMO NORWOOD: Freedman Suit Remanded to Middlesex Superior Court
DREW UNIVERSITY: Dougherty Suit removed to D. New Jersey
DS SMITH: Isaacson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
EASTLAND MALL: FLSA & Rule 23 Class Certified in Beaver Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Madlinger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
ENVOY AIR: Abudayyeh Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Adams Sues Over Inadequate Credit Reporting
ERIE INSURANCE: LA Campagna Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
ERIE INSURANCE: Pleasant Food Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
ESTWING MANUFACTURING: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Morgan Claims
FAIR CAPITAL: Cymonisse Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 3rd Cir.
FCA US: Will Ask Court to Junk Peralta's Class Suit on Feb. 12
FEDERAL MANAGEMENT: Judgment Dismissing All Claims in Tam Affirmed
FERRARA CANDY: Pizarro Sues Over Mislabeled Shortbread Cookies
FIELDWORKS LLC: Mathews Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Grunwald Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FLETCHER JONES: Nieman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
FLUOR CORP: Butler Suit Under WARN Act Dismissed With Prejudice
FRANK & NINO'S: Asks Court to Junk Canelas Class Suit as Moot
FUJI SUSHI: Tria Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
GEICO INSURANCE: Prudhomme Appeals W.D. La. Ruling to 5th Cir.
GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
GIGCAPITAL3 INC: Faces Shingote Suit Over Proposed Lightning Merger
GOLDEN SPECIALTY: Faces Acosta Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Kearney Suit Over 23% Share Price Drop
GREEK TAVERNA: Fails to Pay Cooks' OT Wages, Joaquin Suit Claims
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
H.O.P.E. NETWORK: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Chase Suit Says
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: Fatal Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Beylerian Suit Removed to C.D. California
HOAI 86TH INC: Tran Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HORIZON FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Nash Suit
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Payne Files Suit in D. Columbia
HUNGRY MARKETPLACE: Webb Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
IDEAL INDUSTRIES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ILLINOIS: McFarlan "SORA" Suit Seeks Class Action Status
IMPERFECT FOODS: Reed Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Wright Files Suit in M.D. Florida
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Hill Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
J.M. SMUCKER: Marthaller Says Coffee Makes Fewer Cups Than Labeled
J.M. SMUCKER: Thompson Sues Over Folgers Coffee False Ad
JCJB MARKETING: Baltimore Files TCPA Suit in Massachusetts
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Covachuela Seeks Conditional Class Certification
JOHNSON CONTROLS: To Pay Residents $17.5M to Settle PFAS Lawsuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Arbitration Bid in Thomas Suit Denied W/o Prejudice
K12 INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
KROGER COMPANY: Mullins to Send Postcards to Class of Managers
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Farah's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
LOGIX FEDERAL: Ketayi Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
MANPOWER INC: Zielinski Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
MARS INCORPORATED: Nieman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MDL 2924: Court Nixed Three Zantac Class Action Complaints
MEDIGAPDIRECT INC: Amado Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MEDRISK, LLC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Neighborhood JFPA Suit
METHODIST HEALTH: Reed FLSA Suit Seeks Employees Collective Status
MIDLAND CREDIT: Beneli Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MINDGEEK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Child Sexual Abuse
MONARCH RECOVERY: Hampton Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
MORGAN STEEL: Faces Williams Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MORROW-MEADOWS: Final Approval of Deal in Wage & Hour Suit Vacated
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
NEW YORK: Harper Files ADA Suit v. Cuomo, et al.
NEW YORK: Matzell Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. New York
NORTHECOMM LLC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Settles Cobra Sexual Health Class Action
ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Lawsuit
OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS: Lemus Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
PHYSICIANS ANSWERING: Sends Unwanted Faxes, Cooperative Suit Says
PICK RESEARCH: Advanced Dermatology Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
PNC BANK: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in Lyons RESPA-TILA Suit
PORSCHE AG.: Sciabarrasi Sues Over Emissions Testing Manipulation
PORTOFOLIO RECOVERY: Sanders Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
PRESSLER, FELT: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nieves Sues Over Misleading Toothpaste Product Ad
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Conditional Cert. of Employees Class Sought
QIWI PLC: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 9 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Leo Sues Over 40.84% Share Price Drop
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Malriat Sues Over 40.84% Drop in Share Price
R.N.A. OF ANN: Medrano Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation
REGAL MARINE: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of February 19 Deadline
RETROFITNESS LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Sibirtzeff Files Suit in S.D. New York
SANFORD HEISLER: Oks of $7.75-MM Discrimination Class Settlement
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Li Sues Over 4.7% Drop in Share Price
SHANG SHANG: Jiao "FLSA" Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
SIMMONS SPORTING: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Graciano Claims
SIRIUS XM: Sawyer Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SOLARWINDS CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: RM LAW Reminds Investors of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SONA NANOTECH: Faces Powers Suit Over 67% Drop in Share Price
SONA NANOTECH: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SOUTHLAND BOX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Claims
SPLUNK INC: Faces Guirguis Suit Over 23% Decline in Share Price
SPLUNK INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
SPRINGS WINDOW: Poland Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
SQUARETRADE: Starke Seeks Class Certification, Initial Injunction
ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Oncologist Allegedly Harming Patients Removed
STANTEC INC: Court Junks Case Due to Annapolis' Voluntary Dismissal
STEMGENEX: Initial Approval of Partial Class Settlement Granted
STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Rochman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Pet Parade TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Mooney Balks at Proposed Merger w/ Viracta
TAKL INC: Smith Suit Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
TERM COMMODITIES: Class Action Status Sought in Cotton Futures Case
TERRA TECH: Stanley Sues Over Unsolicited, Autodialed Text Messages
TEXAS EDUCATION: Court Tosses Alvarez's Motion to Certify Class
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION: Wortham Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
TRANS EXPRESS: Pulliam Suit Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval
TREK BICYCLE: Glancey Sues Over Mislabeled Bicycle Helmets
TRICIDA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TUMINO'S TOWING: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Kiley Towing Suit
TURBOTENANT: Sandofsky Files FCRA Suit in New Jersey
U.S. BANK: Maag Suit Removed to S.D. California
URBAN ALCHEMY: Neutall Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WAL-MART STORE: Court Denies Bid for Show Cause Order in Brown Suit
WALGREEN CO: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Under Seal Documents
WELLS FARGO: Pena Gets Final Certification of Settlement Class
WELLS FARGO: Perez Suit Wins Settlement Class Final Certification
WESTJET AIRLINES: B.C. Judge Approves Class Suit Over Baggage Fees
XEROX CORP: Court Denies Vollmers' Bid for Prelim. Injunction
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Hine Sues Over Analysts' Unreimbursed Expenses
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Hunter Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY KEITH HUNTER JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00066-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Brierton Sues Over Health Risks of AFFF Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
PETER JAMES BRIERTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00064-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Diprizio Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARK DIPRIZIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00061-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Ramsey Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH NATHANIEL RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00065-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants knew that their AFFF products contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, but they failed to warn end
users of the products about the health risks. The Plaintiff was
unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF
products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products.
As a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities, he developed serious medical conditions and
complications.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Peterford Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ANTHONY PETERFORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00062-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants due to
their failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans. The Defendants' failure to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, about
the danger of the products to human health caused the Plaintiff to
develop serious medical conditions and complications.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Gary Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leo Gary v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., Amerex Corporation, Archroma
U.S., Inc., Arkema, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Carrier
Global Corporation, Chemdesign Products, Inc., Chemguard, Inc.,
Chemicals, Inc., Chemours Company FC, LLC, Chubb Fire, Ltd,
Clariant Corp., Corteva, Inc., Deepwater Chemicals, Inc., Du Pont
De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a Dowdupont Inc.), Dynax Corporation, E.I. Du
Pont De Nemours And Company, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., Kidde PLC, Nation
Ford Chemical Company, National Foam, Inc., The Chemours Company,
Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, United Technologies Corporation, UTC Fire & Security
Americas Corporation, Inc. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:20-cv-04456-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 24, 2020) is a class action brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Gary case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC NELSON KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00060-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are highly
toxic and dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees,
including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Lane Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lane v. 3M Company (F/K/A Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., Amerex Corporation, Archroma
U.S., Inc., Arkema, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Carrier
Global Corporation, Chemdesign Products, Inc., Chemguard, Inc.,
Chemicals, Inc., Chemours Company FC, LLC, Chubb Fire, Ltd,
Clariant Corp., Corteva, Inc., Deepwater Chemicals, Inc., Du Pont
De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a Dowdupont Inc.), Dynax Corporation, E.I. Du
Pont De Nemours And Company, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., Kidde PLC, Nation
Ford Chemical Company, National Foam, Inc., The Chemours Company,
Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, United Technologies Corporation, UTC Fire & Security
Americas Corporation, Inc. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:20-cv-04455-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 24, 2020) is a class action brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated seeking
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Lane case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Majcherek Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MARTIN MAJCHEREK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00059-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff bring this case after sustaining personal injury as a
result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of or exposure
to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Warrener Sues Over Health Risks of AFFF Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES THOMAS WARRENER III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00063-RMG
(D.S.C., January 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters
employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of
and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS
and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop serious
medical conditions and complications.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
AARP INC: Krukas "Medigap Policy" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELEN KRUKAS, ANDREA
KUSHIM, and GEORGIA LUKE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AARP, INC.; AARP SERVICES INC.; and AARP
INSURANCE PLAN, Case No. 1:18-cv-01124-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following Class pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
"all persons in the United States who purchased or renewed
an AARP Medigap Policy between January 1, 2011, and the
present;"
This class definition excludes the judge or magistrate
assigned to this case; the Defendants; any entity in which
the Defendants have a controlling interest; and
Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives,
successors, and assigns.
2. granting relief on behalf of themselves and the Class;
3. appointing Helen Krukas and Andrea Kushim as Class
Representatives of all Class members; and
4. appointing the law firms of Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP,
and Gustafson Gluek, PLLC as Lead Counsel for the Class
and the law firms of Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, and Scott
Hirsch Law Group, PLLC as Class Counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
"Medigap" is a supplement insurance which helps pay some of the
out-of-pocket costs not paid by Original Medicare.
AARP is a United States–based interest group focusing on issues
affecting those over the age of fifty. According to the
organization, it had more than 38 million members as of 2018.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ozR3xqat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE
Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Brett Cebulash, Esq.
Miles Greaves, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 873-7654
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
bcebulash@tcllaw.com
mgreaves@tcllaw.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
David Goodwin, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
220 South Sixth Street No. 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
bresch@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCARLETT & HIRSCH PA
7301 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 207A
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Telephone: (561) 278-6707
Facsimile: (561) 278-6244
E-mail: scott@shlawfla.com
ACAMAR PARTNERS: Laidlaw Challenges Proposed Merger With CarLotz
----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY LAIDLAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACAMAR PARTNERS ACQUISITION CORP.; ACAMAR
PARTNERS SPONSOR I LLC; LUIS IGNACIO SOLORZANO AIZPURU; JUAN CARLOS
TORRES CARRETERO; DOMENICO DE SOLE; JAMES E. SKINNER; TECK H. WONG;
CARLOTZ, INC.; and ACAMAR PARTNERS SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2021-0016 (Del. Ch., Jan. 7, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties arising out of
their efforts to effectuate the proposed merger of the Company with
CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz") (the "Proposed Transaction" or "Merger"),
and Acamar Partners, Acamar Partners Sponsor I LLC ("Sponsor"),
Carlotz, and Acamar Partners Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub").
According to the complaint, the Proposed Transaction implies a pro
forma enterprise valuation for CarLotz of $827 million, or 0.88x
2022 estimated revenue of $945 million and 6.8x 2022 estimated
gross profit of $121 million. Existing CarLotz shareholders will
roll over the vast majority of their existing equity, and as a
result current Acamar Partners' stockholder will retain only
approximately 41% of the combined company's pro forma equity (the
"Merger Consideration").
On December 30, 2020, in order to convince Acamar Partners' public
common stockholders to vote in favor of the Merger, the Board
authorized the filing of the Prospectus and Defendant Soloranzo
signed it in his capacity as the Company's Chief Executive Officer.
The Prospectus contains material omissions concerning: (i) the
financial projections relied on by the Board, and (ii) the
financial analyses utilized by the Board to assess the fairness of
the Proposed Transaction.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Prospectus is disclosed to the Company's
stockholders prior to the Stockholder Vote so they can properly
determine whether to vote for or against the Proposed Transaction,
and/or redeem their shares, the suit says.
Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. operates as a blank check
company. The Company aims to acquire one and more businesses and
assets, via a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, and reorganization. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
Dean R. Roland, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St. #1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3889
-and-
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
ALCON VISION: Reaches Class Action Settlement in Contact Lens Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued regarding In re. Disposable
Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation.
A class action settlement has been reached with ABB Optical Group
LLC ("ABB"), a distributor of disposable contact lenses
manufactured by Alcon Vision LCC f/k/a Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
("Alcon"); Bausch & Lomb, Inc. ("B&L"); Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care, Inc. ("JJVC"); and Cooper Vision, Inc. ("CVI").
The lawsuit alleges illegal minimum retail pricing policies adopted
by contact lens manufacturers called "Unilateral Pricing Policies,"
or "UPPs," for the distribution and sale of certain disposable
contact lenses. The safety and effectiveness of contact lenses are
not at issue in this lawsuit. For more information, visit the
website below. Defendants deny they did anything wrong. The Court
has not decided who is right.
Notice was previously provided for settlements with B&L and CVI and
the formation of "Litigation Classes." ABB has since agreed to a
settlement, and the Court has permitted those who purchased only
contact lenses manufactured by B&L an additional opportunity to
opt-out of the Litigation Classes. If you are a Settlement Class
Member, you can participate in the ABB Settlement regardless of
whether you participated in the earlier settlements.
Who Is Included?
The ABB Settlement Class includes certain persons and entities
residing in the United States who made retail purchases of
disposable contact lenses subject to a UPP. For a list of the
contact lenses subject to a UPP and the dates of purchase included
in the settlement, please visit the website below.
How can I get a payment?
The ABB Settlement will establish a $30.2 million Settlement Fund.
If you already submitted a timely and valid claim for the B&L
and/or CVI Settlements, you do not need to submit another claim.
You will automatically be included in the ABB Settlement. If you
did not submit a claim in either of the earlier settlements, you
must submit a claim for the ABB Settlement in order to receive
compensation. You will not be able to share in the B&L or CVI
Settlements if you did not submit a timely and valid Proof of Claim
in those settlements. You can file a claim at the website. The
deadline to file a claim is March 10, 2021. The Net Settlement Fund
will be distributed at a later stage of this Action. Please be
patient and check the website for updates.
Your other options.
If you do not want to be legally bound by the ABB Settlement you
must exclude yourself by March 10, 2021. In addition, consumers who
purchased only contact lenses manufactured by B&L have until March
10, 2021 to request exclusion from the Litigation Classes. You may
object to the ABB Settlement by March 10, 2021. The Detailed Notice
explains how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a
Fairness Hearing on July 2, 2021, to consider whether to approve
the ABB Settlement. Lead Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys'
fees of up to one-third (33.3%) of the ABB, B&L, and CVI Settlement
Funds, after payment of Court-approved costs and expenses. In
addition, Lead Counsel will ask the Court for reimbursement of
costs and expenses for their work in this Action, and may also seek
service awards for the Class Representatives, all subject to the
Court's approval. You may appear at the hearing, yourself or
through an attorney you hire, but you don't have to. For more
information, call or visit the website.
www.ContactLensSettlement.com 1-877-253-3649
SOURCE United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida [GN]
ALLSTATE CORP: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Carpenters Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Allstate Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-10510, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
The case was originally brought by City of St. Clair Shores Police
and Fire Retirement System. The court granted Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund for Northern California and Carpenters Annuity Trust
Fund for Northern California's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiffs on January 17, 2017.
Plaintiffs Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California
and Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern California,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brought a
two count putative class action amended complaint against defendant
Allstate Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and
President from 2005 to 2015 Thomas Wilson, and the CEO and
President of Allstate Financial Matthew Winter, who also took over
for Wilson as President in 2015. Count I alleges that defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Count II, brought only against Wilson and Winter,
alleges control person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
Defendants are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, granting the motion for class certification and
certifying the class who purchased Allstate common stock between
October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive and who were damaged
thereby.
The appellate case is captioned as Allstate Corporation, et al. v.
City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System, et al.,
Case No. 21-8002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, Jan. 4, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and CITY OF PROVIDENCE are represented by:
Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0871
E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com
Defendants-Petitioners ALLSTATE CORPORATION, THOMAS J. WILSON, and
MATTHEW E. WINTER are represented by:
John J. Clarke, Jr., Esq.
DLA PIPER US LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 335-4920
E-mail: john.clarke@dlapiper.com
- and -
Yan Grinblat, Esq.
Kenneth L. Schmetterer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
444 W. Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 368-2183
E-mail: yan.grinblat@dlapiper.com
- and -
David Priebe, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: (650) 833-2056
E-mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com
AMERICAN NAT'L: Morrison Gets Final Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LA TOIYA MORRISON, v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, Case No. 4:19-cv-02855-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order:
1. granting the motion for final approval of class action
settlement, and granting in part the motion for attorneys'
fees and incentive award;
-- The Settlement Class is defined as:
"all individuals who are or were employed by the
American National Red Cross as Training Services
instructors (formerly known as Preparedness and Health
and Safety Services instructors) and/or Nurse Assistant
Training instructors and who have taught courses to Red
Cross clients in California at any time from April 24,
2015 through and including the date the Preliminary
Approval Order is entered by the Court."
-- The Court approves the settlement amount of $377,000;
administrator fees not to exceed $7,500; and attorneys'
fees and costs in the amount of $103,345.15.
-- The Court further awards the named Plaintiff an
incentive award of $5,000.
2. directing the parties and settlement administrator to
implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement; and
3. directing the parties to file a short stipulated final
judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date
of this order.
The Plaintiff brought this wage and hour class action against the
Defendant on behalf of herself and a putative class of instructors
who taught training courses to the Defendant's clients in
California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant required its
instructors to use their personal cell phones to carry out their
job duties, including communicating with the Defendant and its
clients regarding class scheduling, but the Defendant did not
reimburse any portion of instructors' cell phone expenses. The
Plaintiff further argues that Defendant's conduct constitutes
unfair business practices, in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com https://bit.ly/35xhpIY at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Two Rule 23 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA M. WILLIAMS AND
JAMES STEWART, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly
Situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-04700-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) Class defined as:
"all persons in the United States who paid for a
subscription to iCloud at any time during the period
September 16, 2015 until October 31, 2018;"
Excluded from this Class definition are all employees,
officers, or agents of Defendant Apple Inc. Also excluded
from this Class definition are all judicial officers
assigned to this case as well as their staff and immediate
families;
2. certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) Class defined as:
"all persons meeting the foregoing Rule 23(b)(3) class
definition who are current paying subscribers of iCloud in
the United States as of the date the Court enters its
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification;"
3. appointing themselves as class representatives; and
4. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel.
At issue is a single breach of contract claim for money damages and
injunctive relief under California law alleged in the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint. That claim stems from verbatim identical
form iCloud contracts drafted by Apple. Icloud is a service
permitting its users to store content (like documents, photographs,
emails, and text messages) on remote servers (i.e., "on the cloud")
instead of on the users' Apple devices. While Apple offers 5GB of
iCloud storage for free, each of the putative class members paid
monthly fees for higher iCloud storage levels that permit them to
store from 50GB to 2TB of data on iCloud. During the damages class
period, both Williams and Stewart subscribed to iCloud's paid
service, as documented in their receipts from Apple for their
subscription, says the complaint.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 9,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ibksvKat
no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs Andrea M. Williams, James Stewart, and
the Proposed Class, are:
Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 363-3333
Facsimile: (866) 832-5852
E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com
- and -
Azra Mehdi, Esq.
THE MEHDI FIRM, P.C.
One Market
Spear Tower, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 293-8039
Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com
ARIZONA: Satzman, et al. Seek to Certify Class of ADC Inmates
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzman; Daniel
Brinauer; Bonnie Huffman; and all those similarly situated, v.
David Shinn, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections
Rehabilitation & Reentry, in his official capacity; Arizona
Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry, Case No.
2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the following proposed class:
"all past, present, and future Arizona Department of
Corrections (ADC) inmates who require kosher meals to
comply with sincerely held religious beliefs and are
provided non-kosher common fare meals;" and
2. appointing themselves as class counsel under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This case challenges the ADC's policy of providing kosher-keeping
inmates with non-kosher, nutritionally deficient meals (the "common
fare" meals) instead of kosher meals that are consistent with
kashruth and other religious beliefs observed by ADC inmates.
The Plaintiffs contend that the ADC's policy violates their
religious exercise rights and other members of the proposed Class
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act
(RLUIPA) and their right not to be discriminated against because of
their religious beliefs under the Equal Protection Clause.
ADC is statutory correctional facility responsible for the
incarceration of inmates in 10 prisons in the U.S. state of
Arizona. As of December 2015, the ADC manages over 42,643
imprisoned inmates and over 5,466 inmates who have been paroled or
that are statutorily released.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozSKuM
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Stacy Satzman, Daniel Brinauer, Bonnie
Huffman and all those similarly situated, are:
Jordan A. Kroop, Esq.
Thomas D. Ryerson, Esq.
Janet M. Howe, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
Telephone: (602) 351-8000
Facsimile: (602) 648-7000
E-mail: JKroop@perkinscoie.com
TRyerson@perkinscoie.com
JHowe@perkinscoie.com
DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michelle Lombino, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592
E-mail: Michelle.Lombino@azag.gov
- and -
Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
Rachel Love, Esq.
Nicholas d. Acedo, Esq.
STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC
3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
Chandler, AZ 85226
E-mail: dstruck@strucklove.com
rlove@strucklove.com
nacedo@strucklove.com
ASCENT RESOURCES: Eaton, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN EATON and CYNTHIA
EATON, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, and CUNNINGHAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRUST,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. ASCENT RESOURCES - UTICA, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-03412-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class and Subclasses pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
-- "all persons or entities (including their predecessors
and successors-in-interest) who have received, or who
are entitled to receive, royalty payments (whether as a
landowner or mineral owner) from natural gas or oil
wells located within the State of Ohio and that have
been owned or operated by Ascent (or any Ascent's
affiliates, predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries),
or whose royalties are paid by Ascent regardless of
whether Ascent is the actual lessee since October 1,
2014, or for which Ascent (or any Ascent's affiliates,
predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries) was the
"lessee" or owner of the "working interest" pursuant to
any oil and gas lease, or for which Ascent was
associated with such wells or associated drilling
units, since October 1, 2014;"
-- Subclass (a): "all persons or entities within the Class
who have had deductions for "gathering" and
"compression" expenses taken from royalty payments by
Ascent;"
-- Subclass (b): "all persons or entities within the Class
who have had deductions for "processing" expenses taken
from royalty payments by Ascent;"
-- Subclass (c): "all persons or entities within the Class
who have had deductions for "transportation" expenses
taken from royalty payments by Ascent;"
-- Subclass (d): "all persons or entities within the Class
for which Ascent has classified the lessor as having a
"market enhancement clause" lease who have had
deductions for "processing" expenses taken from royalty
payments by Ascent;" and
-- Subclass (e): "all persons or entities within the
Class for which Ascent has classified the lessor as
having a "market enhancement clause" lease who have had
deductions for "transportation" expenses taken from
royalty payments by Ascent;"
2. appointing Brian Eaton, Cynthia Eaton, and the Cunningham
Property Management Trust as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing themselves counsel as Class Counsel.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, all landowners or
mineral rights owners, signed a contract to receive royalties from
natural gas or oil wells located within the State of Ohio. Since at
least October 1, 2014, Defendant, Ascent Resources -- Utica, LLC,
pays these royalties, either as the owner or operator of the wells
or per contractual agreements with other operators. But Ascent is
not playing by the rules of the leases that govern the royalty
payments.
The Plaintiffs contend that the evidence uncovered in this
litigation reveals that Ascent is taking improper deductions from
the royalty payments it makes to its lessors. Ascent has
established a system that ignores industry-standard procedures and
legal duties that protect lessors in favor of a scheme that shifts
expenses to the lessors. Under this scheme, Ascent takes deductions
for certain categories of "post- production" expenses that it is
not contractually permitted to take under the leases involved.
-- Ascent's obtuse royalty process disregards both
accountability and its lessors:
There are two type of leases involved in this litigation,
"net proceeds" leases and "market enhancement" leases. The
proposed class representatives' leases provide examples of
each.
The Plaintiff Cunningham Property Management Trust is the
lessor on two net proceeds leases involved in this
litigation.
-- Ascent fails to follow, or even recognize, standard
industry guidelines that protect lessors:
Ascent fails to follow industry-standard guidelines for
paying royalties. Expert Rick Harper explains in his
report that the Council of Petroleum Accountants Societies
publishes a Gas Accounting Manual that includes
guidelines. Harper states that "these COPAS principles are
considered 'the Bible' in oil and gas accounting,
including the proper payment of royalties."
Despite this directive, Ascent does not follow the COPAS
guidelines in calculating royalty payments. This matters
because, as Harper states in his report, "[r]egardless of
how high the deductions are, as a percentage of the
revenue, the post-production costs are simply deducted."
This preceding point is admitted by Ascent. Ascent does
not even make an attempt at a reasonableness determination
for deductions that the Court has determined must be
reasonable. Ascent's conduct is at worst strategic theft,
and at best willful ignorance. At his deposition, Ascent's
revenue controller, Lenocker, remarkably professed to not
knowing such guidelines even existed.
Ascent is a producer of natural gas in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LFoYpV
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ethan Vessels, Esq.
FIELDS, DEHMLOW & VESSELS
A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
309 Second Street
Marietta, OH 45750
Telephone: (740) 374-5346
Facsimile: (740) 374-5349
E-mail: ethan@fieldsdehmlow.com
- and -
Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
Shawn Judge, Esq.
ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TETOR, LLC
Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
Columbus, OH B43215
Telephone: (614) 221-2121
E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
sjudge@isaacwiles.com
AUBURN, WA: Kilman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jessica Kilman, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated v. City of Auburn, a Washington municipal
corporation; Auburn Valley Humane Society, a Washington nonprofit
corporation; Phil Morgan, and marital community; Case No.
20-00002-17692-3, was removed from the King County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on Jan. 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00026 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Auburn -- https://www.auburnwa.gov/ -- is a city in King County,
Washington, United States. The population was 70,180 at the 2010
United States Census.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Karp, Esq.
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
114 W Magnolia Street, Ste. 425
Bellingham, WA 98225-4354
Phone: (360) 738-7273
Fax: (360) 392-3936
Email: adam@animal-lawyer.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Rosenberg, Esq.
Christine J. Lee, Esq.
WILLIAMS KASTNER (SEA)
601 Union Street, Ste. 4100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 628-6600
Email: arosenberg@williamskastner.com
clee@williamskastner.com
AUSTIN BUSINESS: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUSTIN BUSINESS FINANCE, LLC, d/b/a GET
BACKD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00085 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant contacted her on her
cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around
October 2019 in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant
allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in
placing its calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number that
was assigned to a cellular telephone service for which the
Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls and messages. The
Plaintiff added that he never provided the Defendant his "prior
express consent" to be contacted using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons were harmed as a result of the Defendant's
unlawful conduct of placing illegal calls that were not for
emergency purposes. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks relief, damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies.
Austin Business Finance, LLC is a business lending 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
BALANCE STAFFING: Faces Snipes Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balance Staffing
Worforce LLC. The case is captioned as Ananias Snipes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated vs. Balance Staffing
Worforce LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010871 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 24,
2020).
The case arises from employment-related issues and is assigned to
Judge George J. Abdallah.
A case management conference is set for June 25, 2021 before Judge
Abdallah.
Balance Staffing Worforce LLC is a California-based company which
provides workforce management solutions and staffing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
10045 SW 111th St.
Miami, FL 33176-3462
Telephone: (305) 439-7872
Facsimile: (305) 270-3203
BARTON COLLEGE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barton College. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Barton College, Case No.
1:21-cv-00118 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barton College -- https://www.barton.edu/ -- is a private liberal
arts college in Wilson, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROTHE, CARLOS
MARTINEZ AND ANDREW BRYANT, Individually and On Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, v. BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, Case No.
1:18-cv-03179-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order certifying the alleged collective action and class under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq.,
and Rule 23 and for preliminary approval of the executed Settlement
Agreement.
Summary of the Settlement Terms:
-- The total amount to be paid by Battelle in settlement of
this action is $4,650,000.
-- The Settlement, less deduction for payments to class
representatives, attorneys' fees and costs, and the costs
of administration of the Settlement ("Net Settlement
Amount"), will be distributed to each Class Member based
upon a pro rata share (stated as a percentage).
-- The proposed enhancement award to the three named
Plaintiffs of $80,000 is reasonable and Battelle, by this
Motion, consents to paying the same as part of the
Settlement Agreement.
-- The Plaintiffs' counsel will seek approval of an
attorneys' fee award in the total amount of $1,550,000.00,
which represents 33⅓% of the Settlement Fund to be paid by
Battelle.
On December 12, 2018, Jason Rothe, Carlos Martinez, and Andrew
Bryant, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
employees of Battelle, filed a Complaint in this Court alleging
that Battelle violated the FLSA and Colorado wage and hour laws,
specifically the Colorado Wage Claim Act. The complaint alleges
that the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of
Battelle at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, Chemical Agent-Destruction
Pilot Plant ("PCAPP") in Pueblo, Colorado were not paid for work
performed during 30-minute meal breaks, resulting in unpaid regular
and overtime wages under state and federal law. Specifically,
Plaintiffs claim they were routinely interrupted during meal
periods by co-workers, managers, alarms, PA announcements, and
radio calls, resulting in them being "actively on call" and/or
performing work during their meal periods.
On February 12, 2019, Battelle answered the Complaint, denying the
allegations. On May 3, 2019, the Court entered an Order setting
this case for trial on March 8, 2021.
The Parties, represented by experienced counsel on both sides,
reached an agreement in principle to settle this case following a
full day mediation on October 27, 2020 with a third-party mediator
jointly selected by the Parties. Following the mediation, the
parties negotiated the written terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Battelle Memorial Institute is a private nonprofit applied science
and technology development company headquartered in Columbus,
Ohio.
A copy of Parties joint motion for certification of class and
preliminary approval of settlement agreement dated Jan. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bwW5He at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sharon Preston, Esq.
PRESTON & BRAR, LLC
670 East 3900 South, Suite 101
Salt Lake City, Utah 84107
Telephone: (801) 269-9541
Facsimile: (801) 269-9581
E-mail: sharon@prestonbrar.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark B. Wiletsky, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
1800 Broadway, Ste. 300
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 473-2864
Facsimile: (303) 975-5292
E-mail: MBWiletsky@hollandhart.com
- and -
Jeremy B. Merkelson, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
901 K Street NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 654-6919
Facsimile: (303) 975-5292
E-mail: JBMerkelson@hollandhart.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Piper Sues Over Crop Input Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA PIPER, as Executrix of the Estate of MICHAEL PIPER,
Deceased, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA INC.,
CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION,
WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED
CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK
INC., SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00021 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 8, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
engagement in antitrust activities resulting to multiple violations
of the Sherman Act, along with violations of the antitrust or trade
protection acts in 25 different U.S. states.
The market for "Crop Inputs" -- seeds and crop protection chemicals
such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides -- used by
American farmers, is one of the largest markets in the world with
annual sales in excess of $65 billion. This market is allegedly
dominated by four major manufacturers -- Defendants Bayer
CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and BASF
Corporation -- that control the distribution of Crop Inputs to
farmers as well as retailers, including Defendants CHS Inc.,
Nutrien Ag Solutions Inc., Growmark Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub,
Inc., Tenkoz Inc., and Federated Co-operatives Limited.
According to the complaint, the existing distribution process
maintains supracompetitive Crop Input prices by denying farmers
accurate product information, including pricing information, which
would allow them to make better-informed purchasing decisions.
Recognizing these inefficiencies, several electronic Crop Input
sales platforms launched between 2016 and 2017. These new platforms
threatened the Defendants' dominant market position and control
over Crop Input pricing. As a result, rather than compete fairly
with these new electronic platforms, Defendants conspired to block
the platforms' access to Crop Inputs by engaging in a group
boycott, the suit says.
According to the complaint, as a result of Defendants' misconduct,
farmers remain trapped in an inefficient, opaque Crop Input market
that eliminates their profits and destroys their livelihoods. The
Plaintiff and the Classes bring this antitrust suit to redress that
misconduct and ensure that future generations of farmers do not
suffer the same fate.
The Defendants are multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and
agriculture companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Jamie Boyer, Esq.
Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
jboyer@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
John Libra, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
Jonathon Byrer, Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
jlibra@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
jbyrer@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
44 South Broadway
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
rstlouis@lowey.com
BIEGLER GMBH: Munderloh Files RICO Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biegler GmbH, et al.
The case is styled as Dr. Timothy Munderloh, Dr. Travis Stiegler,
Munderloh Medical Incorporated, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Biegler GmbH, Solace
Advancement LLC, Doc Solutions LLC, Mark Kaiser, Elizabeth O'Neill,
Titan Medical Compliance LLC, Dr. Timothy Warren Unknown Parties
named as ABC Corps. 1-50; and John Does 1-50, Case No.
3:21-cv-08004-GMS (D. Ariz., Jan. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
BIEGLER GmbH -- https://www.biegler.com/en/home -- was founded in
Mauerbach (near Vienna) in 1973 whose mission is to provide
innovative, high-quality solutions for the medical profession.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy Andrew Nelson, Esq.
NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
21 W Coolidge St.
Phoenix, AZ 85013
Phone: (602) 421-2681
Email: tim@nelsonlawsolutions.com
BIOGEN INC: Faces Shapiro Suit Over 28% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD SHAPIRO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, JEFFREY D. CAPELLO,
MICHAEL R. MCDONNELL, ALFRED W. SANDROCK JR., and SAMANTHA BUDD
HAEBERLEIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-10017 (D. Mass., Jan. 5, 2021) is a
federal securities class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff
and a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Biogen stock
between October 22, 2019 and November 6, 2020, seeking to recover
compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
According to the complaint, despite the disappointing results of
the futility analysis with the aim of establishing aducanumab as an
effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease, Biogen was not ready
to part with its vision of reaping enormous financial benefits
stemming from the introduction of a breakthrough therapy.
Accordingly, in October 2019 -- approximately seven months after
Biogen discontinued its phase 3 trials -- Biogen shocked the
medical community by announcing that its previously terminated
trials were going to be revived based on newly analyzed data sets.
Since the said announcement, Biogen executives disseminated dozens
of false and misleading statements in which they touted the post
hoc data analyses purportedly arising from its phase 3 and phase 1
clinical trials and the implications thereof on aducanumab's
regulatory approval.
The investing public learned the truth on November 6, 2020, when
the Food and Drug Administration's independent Advisory Panel
reviewed Biogen's submission. After a seven-hour virtual meeting,
the FDA Advisory Panel voted nearly unanimously that it was not
"reasonable" to consider Biogen's research as primary evidence of
effectiveness of aducanumab.
On this news, the price of Biogen common shares dropped $92.64 per
share, or 28%, to close at $236.26 per share, wiping more than $14
billion in investor wealth.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
Study 302, viewed independently, did not provide strong evidence
that supported the effectiveness of aducanumab; (2) Study 103 did
not provide supportive evidence of the effectiveness of aducanumab;
(3) Study 302 could not be considered as primary evidence of
effectiveness of aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer's
disease in light of the results of the exploratory analyses of
Study 301 and 302 and the results of Study 103; (4) the totality of
the data did not provide sufficient evidence to support efficacy of
aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; 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.
Biogen Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovery, development, manufacture, and delivery of therapies for
treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune,
and hematologic disorders. The Company's principal marketed
products include treatments for multiple sclerosis, non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, arthritis, Crohn's disease, psoriasis, and Alzheimer's
disease.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN, LLP
110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
Telephone: (781) 431-2231
E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com
- and -
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: urabinovitz@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
BLACK THAI: Faces Gonzales Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANER GONZALES and MARIO LOPEZ CUYUCH, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. BLACK THAI INC. (D/B/A BLACK THAI),
GOLDEN THAI INC. (D/B/A GOLDEN THAI), JOHN VASCONEZ, and JANE DOE,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00118 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay at
applicable minimum hourly rate, failure to pay overtime wages for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to
pay spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide written notice of
rate pay, and failure to furnish wage statements.
Plaintiff Gonzales was employed by the Defendants at Black Thai and
Golden Thai as cook from approximately January 15, 2017, until on
or about March 12, 2020.
Plaintiff Lopez was also employed by the Defendants at Black Thai
and Golden Thai as cook from approximately April 15, 2017, until on
or about December 31, 2019.
The Defendants own, operate, or control two Thai food restaurants
located in Jackson Heights, New York, under the name "Black Thai"
and in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Golden Thai."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BLACKBAUD INC: Bishop Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dennis Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No.
4:20-cv-40149, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Jan. 6, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00034-JMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Blackbaud -- https://www.blackbaud.com/ -- is a cloud computing
provider that serves the social good community--nonprofits,
foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare
organizations, religious organizations, and individual change
agents. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Lofton Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------
The case styled Helen Lofton, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05775, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Dec. 29, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-04510-JMC to the proceeding.
The case arises from alleged contract-related violations and is
assigned to the Honorable Judge Michelle Childs.
Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. The Company's products
and services enable non-profit organizations to increase donations,
reduce fundraising costs, improve communication with constituents,
manage their finances, and optimize internal operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
GRANT AND EISENHOFER
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-0000
E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
- and -
Brittany Erin Hartwig, Esq.
Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER
10 N. Dearborn, 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: Bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mary S. DiRago, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 759-1926
E-mail: molly.dirago@troutman.com
BMS CAT: Faces Palacios Suit Over Cleaning Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH PALACIOS, ARTURO XELO, HERALD VELASQUEZ, and PABLO LABRABOR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMS
CAT, INC., WYNGATE SERVICE MANAGEMENT CORP., NY PRIME RESTORATION
INC., CAROLINE BONNEN, and ZULLY BERNAL, Case No. 1:21-cv-00152
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Palacios worked for BMS CAT and Wyngate as a cleaning worker from
approximately April 15, 2020, to August 19, 2020.
Xelo worked for BMS CAT and Wyngate as a cleaning worker from
approximately April 15, 2020, to August 30, 2020.
Velasquez worked for BMS CAT and Wyngate as a cleaning worker from
approximately March 2020 to June 30, 2020.
Labrabor worked for BMS CAT and NY Prime as a cleaning worker from
approximately March 24, 2020, to August 30, 2020.
BMS CAT offers corporate and residential customers disaster
recovery services across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Vivianna Morales, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
morales@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
BOSCH EMISSIONS: Reaches Class Action Settlement on Emission Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of emissions class actions were commenced across Canada
concerning 2009-2016 Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche vehicles equipped
with diesel engines (the "Emissions Claims"). The Emissions Claims
were already the subject of two court-approved settlements with
Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche (the "2&3L Settlements"), where
extensive benefits were made available to owners and lessees of the
affected vehicles. A separate action against Robert Bosch GmbH (the
"Bosch Action") has been certified and settled, and the settlement
(the "Bosch Settlement") was approved by the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on September 22, 2020.
Who Should Read this Notice?
The settlement of the Bosch Action affects the rights of Bosch
Settlement Class Members. Subject to some exclusions*, you are a
Bosch Settlement Class Member if:
(a) On September 18, 2015, you owned or leased a diesel-powered
2009-2015 VW Jetta, a 2009 VW Jetta Wagon, a 2010-2013 or 2015 VW
Golf, a 2012-2015 Passat, a 2010-2014 VW Golf Wagon, a 2015 VW Golf
Sportswagon or a 2010-2013 or 2014 Audi A3; or
(b) On November 2, 2015, you owned or leased a diesel-powered
2014-2016 Audi A6, A7, A8, A8L or Q5, a 2009-2015 Audi Q7, a
2013-2016 Porsche Cayenne or a 2009 to 2016 Volkswagen Touareg.
For a list of Excluded Persons*, which includes persons who
purchased their vehicles in Quebec, visit
www.BoschCanadaSettlement.com. Excluded Persons are not Bosch
Settlement Class Members.
The Bosch Settlement and Payments of Benefits
The Bosch Settlement resolved the Emissions Claims advanced against
Bosch and provides for the all-inclusive payment of CAD $9,270,000
in exchange for a final release of all Emissions Claims of Bosch
Settlement Class Members.
Not all Bosch Settlement Class Members will receive compensation.
Payments will only be made to 4 categories of Bosch Settlement
Class Members who received certain benefits pursuant to the 2&3L
Settlements. Some of the Bosch Settlement Class Members who are
eligible to receive benefits will receive direct payments based on
earlier information available from the 2&3L Settlements, and may
only need to update their contact information and others will have
to make a claim for benefits before April 8, 2021.
*Where Can I Get More Information?
This is just a summary. For more information, including to view
copies of the Settlement Agreement, approved Distribution Plan and
a more detailed Approval Notice with additional instructions on who
needs to make a claim, who will receive direct benefits, and how to
update contact information, as well as contact information for
Class Counsel, who are available to assist with any questions or
inquiries at no cost to you, please visit
www.BoschCanadaSettlement.com. [GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ENRIQUE JEVONS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
MICHAEL F. MAHONEY, and DANIEL J. BRENNAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05894,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on January 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-10033-NMG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding Boston
Scientific Corporation's LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System in order to
artificially inflate the price of Boston Scientific securities
between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020.
Boston Scientific Corporation is a company that develops,
manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various
interventional medical specialties worldwide, with its principal
executive offices located at 300 Boston Scientific Way,
Marlborough, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind 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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-bsx/
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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN]
BOW WOW PROPERTIES: Howard Suit Remanded to St. Louis Cir. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDY HOWARD, JR., Plaintiff v. BOW WOW PROPERTIES I,
INC., d/b/a InstaCredit AutoMart, Defendant, Case No. 4:20 CV 1631
CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted
Howard's Motion to Remand, and remanded the case to the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.
Plaintiff Howard originally filed the action in the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") and the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act ("MMPA"). Defendant Bow Wow removed the action to
the Court on Nov. 18, 2020, averring that Howard's claims under the
MMWA bring the action within the Court's federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. It asserts no other
basis for removal.
In April 2020, Howard purchased an automobile from Bow Wow for
$10,156. At the time of purchase, Bow Wow provided to Howard a
written InstaCare Limited Warranty that obligated Bow Wow to repair
or pay for repairs to the vehicle for 90 days or 3,000 miles,
whichever came first. Within days of purchase, the vehicle's
check-engine light went on and the car went into "limp mode."
Mr. Howard returned the vehicle to Bow Wow for repair. He picked
up the car from Bow Wow approximately two weeks later, after which
the car again went into limp mode. Howard again returned the
vehicle to Bow Wow for repair. About three weeks later, he picked
up the vehicle and it immediately went into limp mode. Howard
returned the vehicle to Bow Wow a third time, and Bow Wow again
kept the vehicle several weeks for repair. Before Howard could
retrieve the car after the third repair, however, Bow Wow demanded
that Howard pay $250 based on a clause in the warranty that
assessed a deductible of 10% of the total cost of repair. Howard
paid the $250 and retrieved his vehicle.
Howard filed the action in state court alleging that Bow Wow failed
to make repairs to his purchased vehicle "without charge," in
violation of the MMWA, and specifically 15 U.S.C. Section
2304(a)(1). In Count 1 of his complaint, Howard seeks relief under
the MMWA on behalf of a class of Missouri residents who purchased a
vehicle from Bow Wow within the last four years and from whom Bow
Wow collected money for a repair performed under the InstaCare
Limited Warranty. Howard estimates that Bow Wow sold approximately
6000 vehicles that meet the parameters of the claim.
In Count 2, Howard seeks individual relief under the MMWA, seeking
recovery of the purchase price of the vehicle, collateral charges,
finance charges, and incidental and consequential damages. In
Count 3, Howard brings an individual claim under the MMPA, alleging
that Bow Wow engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in its
sale of the vehicle to him.
Bow Wow removed the action to federal court, averring that Howard's
claims under the MMWA bring the case within the Court's federal
question jurisdiction.
Mr. Howard moves to remand the action back to state court, arguing
that the MMWA claims are not cognizable in the Court because a)
only one plaintiff is named in the class action, and b) the amount
in controversy on his individual MMWA claim is less than $50,000.
In response, Bow Wow concedes that the class action claim raised in
Count 1 does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of 100 or more
named Plaintiffs as required by Section 2310(d)(3)(C). It also
concedes that Howard's individual MMWA claim raised in Count 2,
when considered alone, does not meet the $50,000
amount-in-controversy threshold under Section 2310(d)(3)(B).
Bow Wow argues, however, that the "all claims" language of Section
2310(d)(3)(B) requires that the amount in controversy on the MMWA
class action claim be considered in conjunction with that on
Howard's individual MMWA claim in determining whether the $50,000
threshold is met. It contends that because such computation
exceeds $50,000, Section 2310(d)(3)(B) provides original federal
question jurisdiction over Howard's individual MMWA claim in Count
2, thereby permitting the Court to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Counts 1 and 3 under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
Judge Perry disagrees, holding that Howard's claim raised in Count
2 of the complaint is the only individual MMWA claim. Howard avers
and Bow Wow concedes that the amount in controversy on the
individual claim is $10,406. Because the sum of all individual
MMWA claims is less than $50,000, Section 2310(d)(3)(B) does not
provide the Court with original federal subject-matter jurisdiction
over the individual claim raised in Count 2.
Accordingly, because her determination of whether original
jurisdiction exists does not include consideration of claims over
which the Court can exercise only supplemental jurisdiction, the
amount in controversy on Howard's non-cognizable class action claim
is not relevant to the determination of original jurisdiction in
the action, Judge Perry holds. Several other courts have reached
the same conclusion, that is, that Section 2310(d)(3)(B)'s $50,000
jurisdictional threshold is measured by only individual MMWA claims
and does not include non-cognizable class action claims.
Judge Perry concludes that the MMWA does not provide federal
question jurisdiction over the action. And Bow Wow provides no
other argument or evidence establishing any other basis for federal
subject-matter jurisdiction. In view of this determination, and in
consideration of the caveat that all doubts about federal
jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand, she will remand
the case to state court.
Therefore, Howard's Motion to Remand is granted and remanded the
case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, from which
it was removed. All other motions that remain pending in the
action are reserved for ruling by that court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y38pck8o from Leagle.com.
BRENTWOOD HOME: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brentwood Home, LLC.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Brentwood Home, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00123
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brentwood Home -- https://www.brentwoodhome.com/ -- has been
handcrafting fine, luxury mattresses & bedding since 1987.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
C-LINE PRODUCTS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C-Line Products, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. C-Line Products, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00122
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
C-Line Products, Inc. -- https://www.c-lineproducts.com/ -- is a
developer and manufacturer of plastic storage, identification and
organization items and a well-known name in the office products
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
CAIRN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cairn University. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Cairn University, Case No.
1:21-cv-00119 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cairn University -- https://cairn.edu/ -- is a private Christian
university in Langhorne Manor, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CALAIS FOREST: Hopkins Sues Over Asst. Managers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY HOPKINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CALAIS FOREST EQUITY ENTERPRISES, LLC, NAPA VALLEY
EQUITY ENTERPRISES, LLC, and NATIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00024-LPR (E.D. Ark., Jan. 8,
2021) arises from the Defendants' violations of the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by
failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
premiums for all hours worked over 40 in any week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
leasing consultant from November of 2019, until June of 2020, and
as an hourly-paid assistant property manager from June of 2020 to
the present.
The Defendants manage properties throughout the United States,
including in Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
CASSA GROVE: Turizo TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Ryan Turizo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cassa Grove 28, LLC, Case No.
CACE-20-020102, was removed from the Florida 17th Judicial Circuit
Court for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Dec. 24, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-62663-RAR to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and is assigned to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz,
II.
Cassa Grove 28, LLC, doing business as Zoi House Apartments, is an
apartment development company in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank Christopher Simone, Esq.
FRANK SIMONE, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 221-8000
Facsimile: (305) 357-2510
E-mail: frank@franksimone.com
CENTRAL GARDEN: Warr Sues Over Over Illegal Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD WARR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY; and, DOES 1-10, Case No.
3:20-cv-09405-AGT (N.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2020) seeks statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages due to the Defendants' systematic
and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.
Mr. Warr, who was employed by Central Garden as a non-exempt
employee from about November 2019 to about February 2020, asserts
that the Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative
consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background
checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former
employees. The Defendants allegedly use information from credit and
background reports in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.
Central Garden & Pet Company is a marketer and producer of branded
products and distributor of third party products in the pet and
lawn and garden supplies industries in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Promotional Appeals Court Ruling to 10th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Promotional Headwear International filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Promotional Headwear
International v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No.
2:20-CV-02211-JAR-GEB, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas - Kansas City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought for declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising
from the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related to COVID-19 as
required by the property insurance agreements it sold to the
Plaintiff and other businesses.
The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated Dec. 3, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Promotional Headwear
International v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No. 21-3000, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Jan. 4,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance is due on January 19, 2021 for Promotional Headwear
International; and
-- Notice of appearance is also due on January 19, 2021 for
Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PROMOTIONAL HEADWEAR INTERNATIONAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Michael Barzee, Esq.
Richard Frank Lombardo, Esq.
Rachael D. Longhofer, Esq.
Dawn Marie Parsons, Esq.
SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
2001 Wyandotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 931-0500
E-mail: mbarzee@sls-law.com
rlonghofer@sls-law.com
dparsons@sls-law.com
- and -
Patricia Lynn Campbell, Esq.
Brett A. Emison, Esq.
J. Kent Emison, Esq.
LANGDON & EMISON - LEXINGTON
911 Main Street, P.O. Box 220
Lexington, MO 64067
Telephone: (660) 259-6175
E-mail: tricia@lelaw.com
brett@lelaw.com
kent@lelaw.com
- and -
Joseph Michael Feierabend, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
John J. Schirger, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6510
E-mail: jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jschirger@millerschirger.com
- and -
Abby McClellan, Esq.
Christopher Curtis Shank, Esq.
Patrick Joseph Stueve, Esq.
Bradley Wilders, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
shank@stuevesiegel.com
stueve@stuevesiegel.com
wilders@stuevesiegel.com
Defendant-Appellee CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., an Ohio
corporation, is represented by:
Michael L. Brown, Esq.
Kelvin J. Fisher, Esq.
WALLACE SAUNDERS
10111 West 87th Street, P.O. Box 12290
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 888-1000
E-mail: mbrown@wallacesaunders.com
kfisher@wallacesaunders.com
- and -
Ericka C. Hammett, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
250 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 488-1835
E-mail: Hammett@LitchfieldCavo.com
- and -
Daniel G. Litchfield, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
303 West Madison Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60606-3309
Telephone: (312) 781-6640
E-mail: Litchfield@LitchfieldCavo.com
CO-CO NAILS BREWSTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guaman Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARIA GUAMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CO-CO NAILS BREWSTER, INC. (D/B/A COCO NAIL
& SPA); KEVIN LEE A.K.A. OI SOOK LEE; and SHIN KIM A.K.A. CHUI,
Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00133 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Guaman was employed by the Defendants as masseuse and a
cleaner.
CO-CO NAILS BREWSTER, INC. owns and operates a spa and a nail
salon, located at Brewster, NY, under the name "Coco Nail & Spa".
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Suit Removed to W.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carla Oakley, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Coast Professional, Inc., Performant
Financial Corp., Performant Recovery, Inc., Case No. 20-C-85-WS,
was removed from the Mercer County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Jan.
8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Coast Professional -- https://coastprofessional.com/ -- is a
financial services company providing debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
P. O. Box 959
Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
Phone: (304) 574-2727
Fax: (304) 574-3709
Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Albert C. Dunn , Jr., Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT
P. O. Box 3710
Charleston, WV 25337-3710
Phone: (304) 345-4222
Fax: (304) 343-3133
Email: adunn@baileywyant.com
CONDUENT STATE: Sanchez Files Suit in D.N.J. Over Breach of Contact
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent State and
Local Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as SANDRA
SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CONDUENT STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC. and CONDUENT, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-20229-KM-ESK (D.N.J., Dec. 23, 2020).
The case is brought over alleged breach of contract and is assigned
to Judge Kevin McNulty.
Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc. is located in Baltimore,
Maryland, and is part of the information technology services
industry.
Conduent Inc. is an American business process services company
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Deem, Esq.
R.C. SHEA & ASSOCIATES PC
244 Main Street, P.O. Box 2627
Toms River, NJ 08754
Facsimile: (732) 929-9579
E-mail: mdeem@rcshea.com
COVIA HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Covia Holdings Corporation f/k/a
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Covia") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA)
(NYSE: FMSA) between March 15, 2016 to June 29, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=covia-holdings-corporation&id=2519
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=covia-holdings-corporation&id=2519
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not
necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; Covia's revenues,
which were dependent on its proprietary "value-added" proppants,
was based on misrepresentations; when Covia insiders raised this
issue, defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the
issue; 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. 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.
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]
CUSTOM WIRE: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY JANNETTE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CUSTOM WIRE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Case No. 2:20-cv-00516-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;
2. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the proposed
"Rule 23 Class" and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective (FLSA Collective);
3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as counsel for the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Plaintiff, Tracy Jannette, as representative of
the Settlement Class;
5. approving the mailing of Notice to members of the
Settlement Class;
6. establishing deadlines for putative FLSA Collective
members to file their "Consent to Join" forms in order to
participate in the FLSA Collective;
7. establishing deadlines for putative Rule 23 Class members
to opt out of the case or object to the Agreement;
8. finding that such Notice process satisfies due process;
9. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class who has not
properly requested exclusion from the Agreement and any
member of the FLSA Collective who timely filed their
"Consent to Join" form, be bound by the Agreement in the
event the Court issues a Final Order Approving Settlement;
10. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class who wishes
to object to the Settlement Agreement in any way must do
so per the instructions set forth in the Notice; and
11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement in no event sooner than 30 days after the close
of the Notice Period.
The Settlement Agreement:
-- Because Plaintiff brought claims under both the FLSA
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
(WWPCL), the case respectively involves both collective
action and class action procedures.
-- The Plaintiff's WWPCL claims are governed by class
action procedures under Rule 23, while his FLSA claims
involve collective action procedures.
-- The parties have agreed to certify the following Rule
23 Class defined as follows:
"all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees employed by Defendant between March 31,
2018 and April 15, 2020 and who clocked in and out
using Custom Wire Technologies, Inc.'s electronic
timekeeping system (Class Members).,"
The parties have also agreed to certify the following
FLSA Collective defined as follows:
"all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees employed by Defendant between March 31,
2018 and April 15, 2020 and who clocked in and out
using Custom Wire Technologies, Inc.'s electronic
timekeeping system."
On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff, Tracy Jannette, filed her Complaint
against the Defendant, on behalf of herself and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff, herself, was an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee of Custom Wire in the three years
preceding the filing of her complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that
Custom Wire failed to compensate her and all other current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and
work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay
for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by
shaving time from her and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift, post-shift, and
in-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of
the employees and to the benefit of the Defendant, in violation of
the FLSA and WWPCL.
The Plaintiff also sought additional amounts as liquidated damages,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Beginning on July 29, 2020 and continuing thereafter, the parties
engaged in formal settlement negotiations. On September 17, 2020,
the parties agreed to refer this matter to a private mediator and
scheduled mediation for October 29, 2020. Prior to mediation, the
parties exchanged information and offers, ultimately agreeing to a
resolution in principle before mediating this matter on October 29,
2020. On December 1, 2020, the parties finalized their Agreement.
A copy of the Parties joint motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement and class certification dated Jan. 8, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i8xc5Z at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert S. Driscoll, Esq.
Christopher K. Schuele, Esq.
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN
1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
Milwaukee, WI 53202
E-mail: rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com
cschuele@reinhartlaw.com
DECORPRICE CORP: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decorprice Corp. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Decorprice Corp, Case No.
1:21-cv-00090 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Decorprice -- https://www.decorprice.com/ -- is a store offering
bargain home decor fixtures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DISH NETWORK: Fuentes "HSSA" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARCISO FUENTES,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, v. DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv-02001-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on March 5, 2021 to enter an order:
1. certifying the following Class and Subclass:
-- Class
"all California consumers who, at any time from 4 years
preceding the filing of this action through the
present:
(a) subscribed to purchase direct-broadcast satellite
television from DISH NETWORK after receiving a
sales presentation in Spanish on DISH NETWORK'S
toll-free Spanish-only telephone line, and
(b) by the time of TV equipment and service
installation, had signed only an English language
contract presented by DISH NETWORK;" and
-- Subclass
"all California consumers who, at any time from 4 years
preceding the filing of this action through the
present:
(a) subscribed to purchase direct-broadcast satellite
television from DISH NETWORK, for a 24-month term
after receiving a sales presentation in Spanish on
DISH NETWORK'S toll-free Spanish-only telephone
line, and
(b) By the time of execution of direct-broadcast
satellite television agreement, were not provided
with a translation of the agreement in Spanish,
that included a translation of every term and
condition in that agreement;"
2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing his Counsel Arthur Levy and Elliot Conn as
Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff Narciso Fuentes, a monolingual Spanish speaker, asks
the Court to certify his claims for public and private injunctive
relief for class treatment under Federal Rule 23(b)(2).
The Defendant DISH Network, LLC advertises its toll-free Spanish
language phone lines to promote its Spanish language programming.
Spanish speakers call the numbers and are connected with
Spanish-speaking customer service personnel located at remote DISH
call centers around the country. The DISH customer service
representatives follow scripts in Spanish to market DISH satellite
TV service to callers. If the caller wants DISH service, DISH then
sends a technician to the customer's home to install the satellite
dish and receivers. The technician presents an English language
contract to the customer to sign on a small electronic screen. DISH
does not provide the customer with a Spanish language version
unless specifically requested. The contract does not contain any
cancellation right.
The Plaintiff contends that DISH's practices violate California's
Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), which requires that any
consumer contract made away from "appropriate trade premises" be in
the language in which it is negotiated and contain a three-day
right to cancel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sqqbT9
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff Narciso Fuentes and the proposed class,
are:
Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: (415) 632-1900
Facsimile: (415) 632-1901
E-mail: bryan@kbklegal.com
- and -
HOUSING & ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
ARTHUR D. LEVY
3950 Broadway, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94611
Telephone: (415) 702-4551
Facsimile: (415) 814-4080
E-mail: arthur@yesquire.com
- and -
Elliot J. Conn, Esq.
CONN LAW, PC
354 Pine St., 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 417-2780
Facsimile: (415) 358-4941
E-mail: elliot@connlawpc.com
DMO NORWOOD: Freedman Suit Remanded to Middlesex Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rya W. Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case,
RACHEL FREEDMAN and JEFFREY GREENBERG v. DAN O'BRIEN KIA NORWOOD,
DMO NORWOOD, LLC, and DAN O'BRIEN AUTO GROUP, Civil Action No.
20-CV-11369-RWZ (D. Mass.), to the Middlesex Superior Court.
The Plaintiffs bought a car from the Defendants' family of
Massachusetts car dealerships in 2019. They now seek to certify a
class that is likely to include "all consumers who purchased an
automobile from any of Defendants' dealerships in Massachusetts
from April 13, 2014 to the present" in order to litigate claims for
unfair and deceptive business practices under Mass. Gen. L. ch.
93A; unjust enrichment; breach of contract; breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing; and fraud. They brought the case in
Massachusetts' Middlesex County Superior Court, the Defendants
removed it to the Court, and the Plaintiffs now move to remand.
On Oct. 20, 2020, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to provide
supplemental briefing regarding the composition of the putative
class and the Defendants to cooperate in supplying them necessary
information regarding historical customer data. Alongside
transaction data, the Defendants provided the customers' addressed,
but not their names.
The Plaintiffs contend that remand is required under the home state
exception because the data provided by the Defendants shows that
85% of their customers provided the dealership with a Massachusetts
residence. It is well above the two-thirds (66.66%) threshold.
Judge Zobel finds that there are more than 3,000 separate
Massachusetts customers in the Defendants' records. Requiring more
would flout such reasonableness. Moreover, the existing record
shows that 85% of the putative class members listed a Massachusetts
residence, while the home state exception only requires 66.66% of
the class members to be Massachusetts citizens.
Even if the contrary evidence contemplated by the First Circuit did
exist with respect to some of the class members, the Plaintiffs
still have sufficient buffer to meet the jurisdictional threshold.
Indeed, more than one-fifth of those customers who listed a
Massachusetts residence would have to be domiciled elsewhere for
the class to fall below the home state exception threshold.
The Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden in
proving the citizenship composition of the putative class. She
allowed the motion to remand to the extent that the case is
remanded to the Middlesex Superior Court, but the Plaintiffs'
request for fees is denied. Further, the Judge allowed the
Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply. She notes that the
reply attached to that motion was taken into consideration. The
motion to dismiss is properly reserved for Middlesex Superior
Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6hy8w4x from Leagle.com.
DREW UNIVERSITY: Dougherty Suit removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Crista Dougherty, Angel Dougherty,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DREW
UNIVERSITY, Case No. MRS-L-002601-20, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on Jan. 6, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00249 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Drew University -- http://www.drew.edu/-- is a private university
in Madison, New Jersey. Drew has been nicknamed the "University in
the Forest" because of its wooded 186-acre campus.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo A. Stio, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
301 Carnage Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08543-5276
Phone: (609) 951-4125
Fax: (609) 452-1147
Email: angelo.stio@troutman.com
DS SMITH: Isaacson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brett Isaacson, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DS Smith Plc, Case No.
2020CH000765, was removed from the Illinois 12th Judicial Circuit
Court, Will County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Jan. 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00125 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
DS Smith -- https://www.dssmith.com/ -- is a packaging company of
customer-specific packaging and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert John Palmersheim, Esq.
PALMERSHEIM & MATHEW
401 N. Franklin Street, Suite 4S
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 705-3622
Email: rjp@thepmlawfirm.com
EASTLAND MALL: FLSA & Rule 23 Class Certified in Beaver Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEJUANA BEAVER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
EASTLAND MALL HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00485-EAS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an
order:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) class under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"all individuals currently and formerly employed by the
Defendants at Eastland Mall during the previous three
years, who were paid on an hourly basis, and who did not
receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate pay for all hours worked in a
workweek in excess of 40 (Hourly Employees)";
2. certifying the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class:
"all individuals currently and formerly employed by the
Defendants at Eastland Mall during the previous two years,
who were paid on an hourly basis, and who did not receive
overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in a workweek in
excess of 40 (Hourly Employees;"
3. approving distribution of the Proposed Notice and Proposed
Reminder Email to putative class members.
4. appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives;
5. appointing Mansell Law, LLC as class counsel;
6. directing the Defendants Eastland Mall Holdings, LLC, and
Group 7 Staffing, LLC to provide to the Plaintiffs within
14 days of the entry of this Order a spreadsheet of the
full name, last known mailing address, last known email
addresses, dates of employment, and position held by:
"all individuals currently and formerly employed by the
Defendants at Eastland Mall during the three years prior
to January 28, 2020, who were paid on an hourly basis."
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have satisfied the necessary
requirements of Rule 23 and the Court grants certification of the
proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court grants conditional
class certification to Plaintiff's proposed class under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b)."
The Plaintiffs filed this action on January 28, 2020 alleging
violations of the FLSA and THE Ohio wage law against the
Defendants.
The Defendants operate a shopping mall, Eastland Mall, located in
Franklin County, Ohio. The Plaintiffs allege that they are employed
at Eastland Mall in various hourly, non-exempt positions. They
allege that Defendants have failed to pay them overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 during a workweek.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3si3Gzr at no extra charge.[CC]
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Madlinger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC. The case is styled as Patricia Madlinger, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00154-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., Jan. 5,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- https://www.ercbpo.com/ --
provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Phone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
ENVOY AIR: Abudayyeh Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ms. Maysoun Abudayyeh, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Envoy Air, Inc., Case
No. 2020-CH-07436, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of
Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00142 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Envoy Air Inc. -- https://www.envoyair.com/ -- is an American
regional airline headquartered in Irving, Texas, in the Dallas-Fort
Worth metroplex.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Maysoun Abudayyeh, Esq.
POTTER BOLANOS LLC
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 861-1800
Email: robin@potterlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
KMA Zuckert
200 W. Madison St., 16th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 345-3000
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Adams Sues Over Inadequate Credit Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BILLY ADAMS, WENDELL BELL, ANN COOKE, and LINETTE MCCAUL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00017 (W.D. Tex., January 6, 2021) is brought by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly and frequently
receives dispute letters from consumers nationwide, including the
Plaintiffs, due to its erroneous credit reporting, and failure to
do re-investigation and record the current status of the disputed
information or delete the items from their consumers' files within
30 days. Although the Plaintiffs provided an adequate information,
the Defendant failed to comply with their disputes.
To avoid operational costs and potential future liability to
consumers like the Plaintiffs, the Defendant purportedly reduced
the number of disputes to which it must respond under the FCRA by
using the provisions under Section 1681i(a)(3)(A) as a guise to
request an unreasonable amount of information from the Plaintiffs
and consumers. As a result, the Plaintiffs have failed to obtain
adequate reinvestigation into inaccurate information on their
credit files, the suit says.
Equifax Information Services, LLC is a nationwide consumer
reporting agency. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam T. Hill, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY LOHMAN, P.C.
28544 Old Town Front St., Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92880
Tel: (657) 236-3525
Fax: (602) 857-8207
E-mail: AdamH@jlohman.com
ERIE INSURANCE: LA Campagna Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as LA Campagna Inc. (doing business as LA Campagna
Ristorante), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Case No. 2:20-cv-02689, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 5, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00005-MRH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- is a publicly
held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life
insurance through a network of independent insurance agents. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Fred S. Longer, Esq.
Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
121 South Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 985-9177
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
Tiffany L Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F Street, NW
District of Columbia, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 239-3277
Email: kristin.shepard@alston.com
tiffany.powers@alston.com
- and -
Matthew Malamaud, Esq.
Robert T. Horst, Esq.
TIMONEY KNOX LLP
400 Maryland Dr.
FT Washington, PA 19034
Phone: (215) 646-6000
Email: mmalamud@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Robert M. Runton, III, Esq.
NELSON LEVINE DE LUCA & HORST
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
Phone: (215) 358-5100
Email: rrunyon@timoneyknox.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Pleasant Food Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pleasant Food, Inc. (doing business as SIDELINES
GRILL PLEASANT VIEW), C&G, INC. (doing business as SIDELINES GRILL
ASHLAND CITY), PLANTATION PUB, INC., ANNEX ROAD GROUP, INC. (doing
business as HILLWOOD PUB), DTAG, INC., JDA PUB, INC. (doing
business as JOE'S PLACE), DTAG, INC. (doing business as CROW'S
NEST), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Erie Insurance Exchange, Case No. 3:20-cv-00570, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on Jan. 6, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00014-MRH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- is a publicly
held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life
insurance through a network of independent insurance agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra L. Foote
Fabrice N. Vincent
Jacob H. Polin
Robert J. Nelson
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (San
Francisco)
275 Battery Street
29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: (786) 408-8083
Fax: (415) 956-0561
Email: fvincent@lchb.com
rnelson@lchb.com
- and -
Gabriel A. Panek
Mark P. Chalos
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (212) 355-9500
Email: gpanek@lchb.com
mchalos@lchb.com
- and -
James S. Higgins
THE HIGGINS FIRM, PLLC
525 4th Ave. S.
Nashville, TN 37210
Phone: (615) 353-0930
Fax: (615) 353-0963
Email: jsh@higginsfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 210-9400
Fax: (212) 210-9444
Email: adam.kaiser@alston.com
- and -
Kristen A. Shepard, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F Street, NW
District of Columbia, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 239-3277
Email: kristin.shepard@alston.com
- and -
Caroline R. Williams, Esq.
S. Morris Hadden, Esq.
HUNTER, SMITH & DAVIS
P O Box 3740
Kingsport, TN 37664-0740
Phone: (423) 378-8800
Fax: (423) 378-8801
Email: cwilliams@hsdlaw.com
mhadden@hsdlaw.com
- and -
Tiffany L Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: (404) 881-4249
Email: tiffany.powers@alston.com
ESTWING MANUFACTURING: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estwing Manufacturing
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Estwing Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00121 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Estwing Manufacturing Company -- https://www.estwing.com/ -- is an
American manufacturer of hammers, axes, and other tools, founded by
Swedish immigrant Ernest O. Estwing in 1923.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Morgan Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE MORGAN and JEHANZEB KHAN, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00189 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8,
2021) arises from the Defendant's deliberate scheme of
misclassifying its delivery drivers, thereby denying them the
fundamental protections due to employees under California Labor
Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the result of the Defendant's
misclassification scheme is that Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated delivery drivers were, and are, routinely denied payment
of minimum wages, overtime and meal/rest period premium wages,
repayment of business related expenses, and other payments provided
by California law. The Defendant also deprives Plaintiffs and Class
members of the protection of workers' compensation benefits in the
event of injury, as well as other benefits to which they are
entitled. Moreover, because of its misclassification, Defendant
fail to properly pay California taxes it owes, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant, through its Regional
Service Provider, as delivery drivers within the State of
California.
Express Messenger Systems, Inc., dba OnTrac, the Delaware
Corporation registered and doing business in California, operates
warehouses, terminals, and distribution facilities in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-2125
Facsimile: (619) 762-2127
E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
crash@sommersp.com
FAIR CAPITAL: Cymonisse Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Germa Cymonisse filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Germa Cymonisse, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAIR CAPITAL, LLC,
Case No. 2-20-cv-02430, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Ms. Cymonisse is seeking a review of the Court's Order dated Dec.
23, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Germa Cymonisse v. Fair Capital
LLC, Case No. 21-1024, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on Jan. 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GERMA CYMONISSE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com
Defendant-Appellee FAIR CAPITAL LLC is represented by:
Ronald A. Giller, Esq.
GORDON & REES
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 549-2500
E-mail: rgiller@grsm.com
FCA US: Will Ask Court to Junk Peralta's Class Suit on Feb. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE PERALTA, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-02307-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the
Court on February 12, 2021 to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissing the Class Action
Complaint filed by the Plaintiff Joe Peralta for failure to state
any legally cognizable claim, and, alternatively, to dismiss or
strike the class allegations in the Complaint.
The Defendant contends that the claims pleaded by the Plaintiff in
the Class Action Complaint rely on, and are dependent on, the
warranty information set forth in the Warranty Booklet. Thus, under
Federal Rule of Evidence 201, this Court can take judicial notice
of this document because "[e]ven if a document is not attached to a
complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if
the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document
forms the basis of plaintiff's claim."
A copy of the Defendant's notice of motion dated Jan. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDz7SA at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan E. Cosgrove, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900
Torrance, CA 90502
Telephone: (424) 221-7400
Facsimile: (424) 221-7499
E-mail: ryan.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 552-6000
Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
tazar@thompsoncoburn.com
FEDERAL MANAGEMENT: Judgment Dismissing All Claims in Tam Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIEW-MEY TAM & another v. FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CO.,
INC., & others, Case No. 19-P-1332 (Mass. App.), the Appeals Court
of Massachusetts, Suffolk, affirmed the Superior Court's judgment
dismissing all claims and the post-judgment order on the
Defendants' motion for the taxing of costs.
In the wage and hour class action, Lead Plaintiff Tam, made
numerous damaging admissions during her deposition. In the face of
the Defendants' efforts to decertify the class based on her
admissions, Tam sought to rescind the admissions by filing an
errata sheet pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 30(e), as appearing in
477 Mass. 1403 (2017).
Multiple Superior Court judges rejected her efforts, and summary
judgment eventually was allowed in the Defendants' favor. On
appeal, Tam argues that she was entitled to retract her
admissions.
Defendant Federal is a landlord that provides low-income housing at
various locations in the Commonwealth. Tam was employed by Federal
as a "property manager" at Mason Place, a 127-unit housing complex
in downtown Boston. In 2013, Tam brought an action against Federal
and certain of its officers alleging various employment-law
violations. The following year, Mary Jane Raymond, a former
property manager at a different site, was added as a Plaintiff, and
in 2015, a Superior Court judge certified the case as a class
action.
Although the operative complaint initially alleged 15 counts, 11
counts were dismissed in 2015. At the heart of what remained was
the claim that Federal failed to pay overtime to Tam, Raymond, and
other similarly situated property managers. The complaint framed
the overtime claims as a violation of G. L. c. 151, Section 1A,
and, as such, a derivative violation of the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149,
Section 148. It was uncontested that Tam worked more than 40 hours
per week but generally was not paid overtime. Instead, the dispute
was whether the nature of Tam's job meant that she was an exempt
administrative employee to whom overtime pay was not due.
Because Tam's base salary exceeded $455 per week, she qualified as
an exempt administrative employee if her primary duty was the
performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the
management or general business operations of Federal or its
customers, and her primary duty included the exercise of discretion
and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
In response to pointed questioning at her deposition in May of
2016, Tam made numerous admissions that directly supported
Federal's position that she was an exempt administrative employee.
In addition to making such admissions, Tam gave other answers that
raised serious concerns about how the case and a related
discrimination case against Federal were being litigated.
When Federal's counsel finished his questioning of Tam, he
indicated that he was suspending rather than terminating the
deposition because of the possible need for additional inquiry in
two areas. After stating his intent to suspend the deposition,
Federal's counsel invited Tam's counsel to cross-examine her. Tam's
counsel declined the invitation, stating that he was "going to
reserve all of his questions for the time of trial."
On June 8, 2016, the court reporter certified the transcript of the
May 26, 2016 deposition, and distributed it to Tam's counsel with
instructions on how to prepare an errata sheet. The deposition
resumed on June 16, 2016, although the transcript of the resumed
portion is not before the Appellate Court and does not appear to be
pertinent.
Around the same time, Federal brought the transcript to the
attention of a Superior Court judge. Observing that Tam's
deposition testimony "called into credibility essential issues that
were considered by the court in certification," the judge stayed
the case pending briefing on and a hearing to consider whether
Tam's answers warranted decertification of the class.
In September 2016, Federal filed a formal motion to decertify the
class. In response, Tam moved to strike the transcript of her May
26, 2016 deposition. According to her, a signed errata sheet was
not yet due pursuant to rule 30(e), because the deposition had not
yet concluded. Her motion expressed her intention to amend her
deposition answers, and it propounded a "provisional," unsigned,
draft 31-page errata sheet. A different Superior Court judge
denied Tam's motion to strike the deposition transcript and allowed
Federal's motion to decertify the class.
In June 2017, Federal filed a motion for summary judgment against
Tam. In opposition to that motion, Tam submitted another draft
errata sheet "correcting" and "clarifying" her deposition answers.
This one contained a signed statement, dated May 8, 2017. Through
that errata sheet, Tam sought to change a "no" answer to "yes" (or
vice versa) over 60 times. She also submitted a new affidavit that
sought to contradict what she had admitted in her deposition
testimony.
A judge who had not been involved in the previous disputes over
class certification allowed Federal's motion for summary judgment.
In so ruling, the judge relied on the principle that a party
opposing summary judgment cannot create a dispute of material fact
by contradicting her own deposition answers, a doctrine sometimes
known as the "sham affidavit rule."
Meanwhile, Raymond's overtime claims were dismissed on
statute-of-limitations grounds. Her separate retaliation claim was
dismissed on the ground that the complaints she had raised to
Federal, which she alleges triggered her firing, did not constitute
protected activity. With the class having been decertified and the
claims brought by the named Plaintiffs dismissed, judgment entered
for the Defendants.
Ms. Tam, and her co-Plaintiff Raymond, raise numerous arguments on
appeal. The Appellate Court begins with Tam's challenge to the
allowance of summary judgment against her, including the key
subsidiary questions whether it was proper for the judge to
disregard her efforts to amend her deposition answers and to deny
her motion to strike the deposition transcript.
As to Tam, first, as a practical matter, the Appellate Court finds
that the fact that a deposition nominally has been suspended does
not mean that it necessarily ever will resume. Second, because Tam
did not comply with the procedural terms of rule 30(e), the
uncorrected transcript of her May 26, 2016 deposition stands as her
deposition testimony. Third, the Court discerns no reason to
conclude that it would be unfair or otherwise inappropriate to
invoke the sham affidavit rule in the case. Given that the sham
affidavit rule applies, Tam's admissions about the nature of her
job stand uncontradicted. There is, therefore, no genuine dispute
as to the material fact that her job qualified as an exempt
administrative position.
Turning to the summary judgment as to Raymond, the Court disagrees
with Raymond's argument that the statute of limitations should be
tolled because Federal made statements that constitute "fraudulent
concealment." At the time Raymond left her job at Federal, she was
aware of all of the facts needed to appreciate that Federal may
have owed her unpaid overtime. And with the statutory claims
failing on statute-of-limitations grounds, Raymond now seeks to
revive her common-law claims, which have a longer statute of
limitations. However, Raymond has not put forth a plausible
factual basis to support such common-law claims, such as a promise
by Federal to pay Raymond overtime.
With the claims of the two named Plaintiffs having been dismissed,
whether the judge acted within his discretion in decertifying the
class is largely moot. In any event, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the judge erred in
decertifying the class. In this regard, it notes that the
principal ground on which the decertification order rested--lack of
an adequate class representative--was sound. And, there was no
error regarding the court's treatment of Michael E. Brooks, as a
substitute class representative.
At the conclusion of the case, Federal requested that it be awarded
costs, which the Plaintiffs opposed. After considering the dueling
submissions, a judge assessed Tam and Raymond the costs associated
with their respective depositions, $2,503.35 and $2,040.20. Even
if the Court assumes arguendo that costs should be imposed
sparingly against employees whose Wage Act claims are unsuccessful,
it discerns no legislative intent flatly prohibiting such awards.
Nor does it discern that the judge abused his discretion in the
award of costs against Tam and Raymond under the circumstances of
the case.
Federal requests that it be awarded its reasonable appellate
attorney's fees and double costs pursuant to G. L. c. 211A.
Although some of Tam's arguments come close, the Court ultimately
concludes that Tam's arguments were not so devoid of merit to
warrant such sanctions.
In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the
judgment, and the order on the Defendants' motion for taxing of
costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy3xa5mr from Leagle.com.
Frederick T. Golder for the plaintiffs.
Cyrus Max Perlman -- max@hrwlawyers.com -- (Richard S. Loftus --
rloftus@hrwlawyers.com -- also present) for the defendants.
FERRARA CANDY: Pizarro Sues Over Mislabeled Shortbread Cookies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Pizarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 7:21-cv-00151
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021) is brought pursuant to the New York
General Business Law arising out of the Defendant's false,
deceptive and misleading representation of its shortbread cookies
covered in fudge under the Keebler brand.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant's front label
representations of the product include "Made With Real Keebler
Fudge," "Fudge Stripes" and a picture of chocolate fudge. The
representation as being made with "real [Keebler] fudge" is
misleading because it lacks the ingredients essential to any fudge,
let alone "real" fudge, says the complaint. The Defendant
misrepresented the product through affirmative statements and
omissions. Had Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it,
the suit says.
The Ferrara Candy Company is an American candy manufacturer, based
in Chicago, Illinois, and owned by the Ferrero Group. The company
was formed from a 2012 merger of the Illinois-based Ferrara Pan
Candy Company and Minnesota-based Farley's & Sathers Candy
Company.[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
- and -
Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
Kleinman LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
Telephone: (516) 522-2621
E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com
FIELDWORKS LLC: Mathews Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MATHEWS,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others, v. FIELDWORKS, LLC, Case
No. 5:20-cv-06057 (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying the following Classes:
-- Adverse Action Class
"all employees or prospective employees of the
Defendant that suffered an adverse employment action on
or after February 21, 2018, that was based, in whole or
in part, on information contained in a Consumer Report,
and who were not provided a copy of the Consumer Report
by the Defendant in advance of the adverse action;"
-- Improper Disclosure Class
"all employees or prospective employees of the
Defendant in the United States who were the subject of
a consumer report that was obtained by the Defendant on
or after February 21, 2018, and who executed one of the
Defendant's application form(s);" and
-- Authorization Class
"all employees or prospective employees of the
Defendant in the United States who were the subject of
a consumer report that was obtained by the Defendant on
or after February 21, 2018, and who executed one of the
Defendant's application form(s);"
2. appointing himself as class representative; and
3. appointing his counsel, Brown & Watkins LLC, as class
counsel.
This case arises out of routine and systematic violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by the Defendant in connection
with the company's procurement and use of Consumer Reports on
individuals who have received offers of employment from the
Defendant.
Fieldworks is an on-the-ground campaign staff for progressive and
democratic organizations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39l1UF8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
BROWN & WATKINS LLC
301 S. US 169 Hwy
Gower MO 64454
Telephone: (816) 424-1390
Facsimile: (816) 424-1337
E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
watkins@brownandwatkins.com
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Grunwald Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Mayer Grunwald,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC, and John Does
1 through 25, Case No. 7:20-cv-10882-CS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020).
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Judge Cathy Seibel.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services. The Company offers comprehensive coverage, auditing,
monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal collections,
skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive data security
services. Financial Recovery Services serves clients in the United
States.
LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu R. Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
FLETCHER JONES: Nieman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS, INC.,
d/b/a AUDI BEVERLY HILLS, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00084 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received unsolicited text
messages from the Defendants on his cellular telephone number
ending in -2427 in or about August 2018 although he was never a
customer of the Defendants and has never provided his cellular
telephone number to them for any reason. Purportedly, the
Defendants transmitted the text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number for the purpose of sending spam
advertisements and/or promotional offers, including those on or
about August 3, 2018 and August 7, 2018, via an "automatic
telephone dialing system."
In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
-2427 had been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry well over 30
days prior to the Defendant's initial call.
The Plaintiff contends that he never provided his prior express
consent to the Defendants to be receive unsolicited text messages.
Because the Plaintiff was harmed by the Defendants' unsolicited
text messages, the Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, the suit says.
Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. operates an automobile dealership
business. [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
FLUOR CORP: Butler Suit Under WARN Act Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Lawrence Butler, Lakeisha Darwish, and Jimi Che
Sutton, Plaintiffs v. Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises,
Inc., Defendants. Harry Pennington, III and Timothy Lorentz,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Fluor Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Fluor
Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc., SCANA Corporation, and South
Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Defendants, Civil Action Nos.
0:17-cv-02201-JMC, 0:17-cv-02094-JMC (D.S.C.), Judge J. Michelle
Childs of the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Rock Hill Division, has entered an order:
a. granting Fluor's Motion for Summary Judgment;
b. granting SCANA's Motion for Summary Judgment;
c. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment;
d. denying the Plaintiffs' Request to Supplement; and
e. dismissing the case with prejudice.
In 2008, SCANA contracted with Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC
("WEC") to build two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear
Station in Jenkinsville, South Carolina. The Project, along with
one other unrelated nuclear reactor site in Georgia, represented
the first new generation of nuclear power plant construction in the
United States in 30 years. SCANA owned the Project site and
facilities.
The contract between SCANA and WEC took the form of an Engineering,
Procurement, and Construction Agreement ("EPC Agreement"). Under
the EPC Agreement, WEC was generally responsible for the design,
manufacture, and procurement of the nuclear reactor, steam
turbines, and generators.
In January of 2016, WEC hired Fluor as a subcontractor to employ
craft employees on the Project and take responsibility for
management of on-site construction while WEC remained responsible
for designing, engineering, construction, and project management.
Later in 2016, WEC asked Fluor to complete a cost analysis to
determine the cost of completing the Project based on WEC's current
schedule. The Estimate to Completion cost analysis allegedly found
the Project would cost several billion dollars more than previously
anticipated, for which WEC would be liable.
Subsequently, the financial health of WEC deteriorated to the point
that, on March 29, 2017, WEC filed for bankruptcy protection under
Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the Southern
District of New York. Shortly thereafter, SCANA and WEC entered
into an Interim Assessment Agreement ("IAA"), which stated the
parties remained obligated to continue performing work under the
EPC Agreement and that going forward, SCANA would pay Fluor, among
other things. WEC continued as the on-site contractor for the
Project. The Bankruptcy Court approved the IAA. The Plaintiffs
contend SCANA began taking a more active role at the Project after
WEC's bankruptcy such that it essentially became a single employer
with its contractors under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.
On July 31, 2017, SCANA stopped all construction at the Project.
As a result of this decision, it appears that approximately 5,000
workers were impacted who had been working and/or receiving
assignments at the Project. It is undisputed that SCANA alone
ordered the Project's closure and gave no advanced warning to
Fluor.
As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class
action Complaint in the Court against the Defendants in August
2017, alleging a violation of the WARN Act. They contend SCANA,
WEC, and Fluor, which comprise a total of six different entities,
essentially all acted as a single employer under the WARN Act and
knowingly failed to give their employees at least 60 days' prior
notice of termination of their employment as required by the WARN
Act. The Plaintiffs further argue Fluor should not escape
liability under the WARN Act because shutdown was reasonably
foreseeable.
Pending before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment by
Defendant Fluor, Defendant SCANA, and the Plaintiffs, both
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated. The
central issue of these Motions is which the Defendants, if any,
should have provided notice under the WARN Act, after SCANA
abruptly terminated the construction of two multi-billion dollar
nuclear reactors that led to the layoff of thousands of workers
with no advanced warning.
Judge Childs opines that the case revolves around whether
independent contractors at the Project may be treated as a part of
SCANA, the "contracting company." If so, both SCANA and Fluor may
well be liable as a single employer for failing to give 60 days'
notice of the Project's closure. The Judge begins with an analysis
of whether SCANA and its contractors amounted to a single employer
under the WARN Act's DOL Factors. She thereafter examines Fluor's
liability as a separate employer under the WARN Act, reviews the
Plaintiffs' request for the court to take judicial notice of
certain documents, and concludes with a brief examination of policy
considerations.
Judge Childs explains that the DOL Factors outlined in the WARN
Act's regulations examine subsidiary or independent contractor
liability with its parent or contracting company by scrutinizing:
"(i) common ownership, (ii) common directors and/or officers, (iii)
de facto exercise of control, (iv) unity of personnel policies
emanating from a common source, and (v) the dependency of
operations." The DOL Factors in essence seek to determine whether
two (or perhaps more) affiliated corporations or entities acted as
a "single employer" to invoke WARN liability.
The Defendants posit the DOL Factors are wholly inapplicable to
contractors, as the DOL Factors clearly require some form of shared
ownership. SCANA further asserts that as a threshold matter, two
entities must be "highly integrated" regarding their ownership and
operation.
Given the specific reference to "independent contractors" in the
WARN Act, the Judge finds it unlikely that the DOL Factors require
some threshold showing of ownership, as it seems a contracting
company would rarely, if ever, possess an ownership interest in an
independent contractor. Consequently, she turns to examine each of
the five DOL Factors to determine whether SCANA and Fluor were a
single employer under the WARN Act.
After a thorough review of the record, and even in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Judge concludes that all five
factors either weigh in favor of the Defendants or do not favor the
Plaintiffs. Specifically, the DOL Factors of shared ownership and
shared officers at a minimum do not favor Plaintiffs. The de facto
control of operations, unity of personnel policies, and dependency
of operations factors all favor the Defendants.
While the Plaintiffs attempt to highlight evidence or legal
theories in their favor (or underscore purported factual disputes)
for four of the DOL Factors, the Judge finds the overall
evidentiary record dwarfs the evidence such that no reasonable jury
could find for the Plaintiffs and, as a matter of law, the
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Given this result,
she must conclude SCANA and Fluor did not act as a single employer
for the purposes of the WARN Act. As a consequence, SCANA was not
required to give WARN notice to Fluor's or WEC's employees, despite
SCANA's abrupt closure of the Project.
The Judge next turns to Fluor's liability for failing to give 60
days' notice pursuant to the WARN Act to its employees after the
Project's termination. She finds that (i) even assuming the
Plaintiffs have not waived the theory of liability, the Project's
abrupt closure amounted to unforeseeable business circumstances
("UBC") to Fluor, which relieved Fluor of WARN liability for
failing to send a 60-day notice to its direct employees; and (ii)
the UBC exception applies to Fluor regarding SCANA's shutdown of
the Project; (iii) Fluor is therefore not liable under the WARN
Act.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court takes judicial notice of
certain documents related to the upcoming criminal guilty plea of
SCANA's former CEO. They seek to supplement the record with
evidence that was not available until after the close of briefing:
the Nov. 24, 2020 Information and Marsh's Plea Agreement.
The Judge declines to take judicial notice of the Information and
Plea Agreement. She holds that Kevin Marsh has not yet entered a
guilty plea in open court and the parties remain unbound by the
proposed Plea Agreement. Even if the proposed Plea Agreement had
been accepted and approved by the Court, it does not appear the
criminal conduct outlined therein would alter the outcome of the
Order. Additionally, the Plea Agreement and Information would not
change the outcome of Fluor's UBC defense. The information
revealed in these documents does not increase the foreseeability of
the Project's abrupt shutdown to Fluor. Likewise, the Information
and Plea Agreement do not name Fluor as a co-conspirator or
otherwise suggest it was culpable in Marsh's alleged criminal
activity.
Finally, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' theory would appear
to open a principal client to single employer liability under the
WARN Act with an otherwise wholly independent contractor simply due
to some combination of either a plant closure, particularly if the
closure is abrupt; compliance with regulations in a highly
regulated industry; and compliance with a contract that was
negotiated at arms-length.
In the Judge's view, such a ruling would contort single employer
WARN liability well beyond any precedent or Congressional intent
and could have far-reaching implications on various industries,
including construction. The Plaintiffs' square-pegged single
employer theory just does not fit within the particular shape of
the WARN Act in the case.
Accordingly, Judge Childs (i) granted SCANA's and Fluor's Motions
for Summary Judgment; and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment and Request to Supplement. She dismissed the case
with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mmm9cb from Leagle.com.
FRANK & NINO'S: Asks Court to Junk Canelas Class Suit as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON O. CANELAS v. FRANK
& NINO'S PIZZA CORP d/b/a Nona's Pizza, NAIM ELEZAJ a/k/a Nino
Elezaj and a/k/a Nona Elezaj, FIDAIM ELEZAJ a/k/a Frank Elezaj, and
FAZLIJA ELEZAJ, Case No. 1:19-cv-06105-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants will move the Court for an order:
1. issuing judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 against
the Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff Canelas upon the
same terms as those set forth in the Offer of Judgment
served upon him on January 7, 2021, namely, in the amount
of $45,548.74;
2. granting an injunction barring the Defendants from further
violations of the FLSA and NYLL of the types alleged in
the Complaint;
3. upon entry of such judgment, dismissing the Complaint as
moot; and
4. providing any other relief as this Court may deem
appropriate.
A copy of the Defendants' notice of motion dated Jan. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2K8ss3O at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Defendants are:
Irene Sinayskaya, Esq.
SINAYSKAYA YUNIVER, P.C.
710 Avenue U
Brooklyn, NY 11223
Telephone: (718) 402-2240
E-mail: irene@sinayskayayuniver.com
FUJI SUSHI: Tria Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX TRIA and JESUS TRIA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. FUJI SUSHI BAR & GRILL OF SC, LLC, d/b/a FUJI
SUSHI BAR & GRILL and QIN JIANG, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
2:20-cv-04462-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 23, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and proper wages for all
hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South
Carolina Payment of Wages Act.
Plaintiff Alex Tria was employed by Fuji from approximately May of
2017 through July of 2019 as a bartender, server, front-of-house
manager, and host.
Plaintiff Jesus Tria was employed by Fuji from approximately 2015
through June of 2019 as a head server, bartender, and host.
Fuji Sushi Bar & Grill of SC, LLC operates a restaurant in
Charleston County, South Carolina, doing business as Fuji Sushi Bar
& Grill.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843) 579-7373
Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
GEICO INSURANCE: Prudhomme Appeals W.D. La. Ruling to 5th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eric Prudhomme, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Prudhomme et al., v. Geico
Insurance Co. et al., Case No. 6:15-CV-98, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette.
The case involves the "valuation" that two GEICO entities,
Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO General Insurance
Company, placed on vehicles determined to be total losses. Two
insureds, Plaintiffs Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack, contend that
the GEICO Defendants undervalued their vehicles when they made
claims for their respective total losses. The Plaintiffs allege
that the GEICO Defendants' use of the CCC One Market Valuation
Report system violates Louisiana statutory law.
The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Order dated Dec.
22, 2020, denying their amended motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Eric Prudhomme v. Government
Employees Insurance, Case No. 21-90002, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Jan. 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kenneth W. Dejean, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH DEJEAN
417 W. University
Lafayette, LA 70506-0000
Telephone: (337) 235-5294
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
- and -
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
650 Poydras Street
Poydras Center
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
- and -
Kenneth David St. Pe, Esq.
Law Office of Kenneth D St Pe
311 W. University Avenue
Lafayette, LA 70506
Telephone: (337) 534-4043
E-mail: kennethstpe@aol.com
- and -
John Randall Whaley, Esq.
WHALEY LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
6700 Jefferson Highway, Building 12
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
Telephone: (225) 302-8810
E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com
Defendants-Respondents Government Employees Insurance Company and
Geico General Insurance Company are represented by:
Stephen R. Barry, Esq.
BARRY & COMPANY, L.L.C.
612 Gravier Street
New Orleans, LA 70130-0000
Telephone: (504) 525-5553
E-mail: sbarry@barrylawco.com
- and -
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL
2415 E. Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ
Telephone: (480) 824-7890
E-mail: dgoldfine@swlaw.com
- and -
Margaret K. Heitkamp, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL
555 E. Wells Street
Milwaukee, WI
Telephone: (414) 273-2100
E-mail: margaret.heitkamp@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Mark J. Neal, Esq.
NEAL LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 14657
Monroe, LA 71207
Telephone: (318) 807-0926
E-mail: mneal@neallawfirm.net
- and -
Dominique Savinelli, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL, L.L.P.
120 S. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
E-mail: dominique.savinelli@huschblackwell.com
GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
XAVIER WALLACE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GEORGIOS OF GREENSPOINT MALL, INC., GEORGIOS OF
SHARPSTOWN CENTER, INC. and EMAD SROUR, Case No. 4:21-cv-00024
(S.D. Tex., Jan. 5, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to
pay minimum wages and/or overtime compensation for all hours worked
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Wallace worked for the Defendants as a sales associate at their
Sharpstown Mall location in Houston, Texas.
The Defendants operate a chain of clothing stores under the trade
name Georgios. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
440 Louisiana, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (832) 798-1184
Facsimile: (832) 553-7261
E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com
GIGCAPITAL3 INC: Faces Shingote Suit Over Proposed Lightning Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHINMAY SHINGOTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIGCAPITAL3, INC.; AVI S. KATZ;
NIEL MIOTTO; JOHN MIKULSKY; RALUCA DINU; ANDREA BETTI-BERUTTO; and
PETER WANG, Defendants, Case No. 650109/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., Jan. 7, 2021) is a stockholder class action on behalf of all
other public stockholders of GigCapital3, Inc. ("GigCapital" or the
"Company") against GigCapital and GigCapital's Board of Directors
(the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants," and collectively with
GigCapital, the "Defendants") for breaches of fiduciary duty as a
result of Defendants ' efforts to sell, the Company to Lightning
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, ("Lightning Systems"),
through Project Power Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company ("Merger Sub").
According to the complaint, Lightning Systems will merge with the
Company, via a reverse merger where, when completed, the Company's
shareholders interests will be significantly diluted - they will
own only 24.3% of the combined company, while existing Lightning
Systems shareholders will own the vast majority, or 65.5%, of the
go-forward company, by raising approximately $125 million of gross
proceeds from GigCapital shareholders to finance a portion of the
purchase price (the "Proposed Transaction")
On December 31, 2020, the Defendants caused to be filed with the
SEC the materially deficient Registration Statement in an effort to
solicit stockholders to vote their GigCapital shares in favor of
the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement is materially
deficient and deprives GigCapital stockholders of the information
they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement allegedly omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales
process leading up to the Proposed Transaction; (b) the financial
projections for Lightning Systems, provided by Lightning Systems to
the GigCapital Board and the Company's financial advisors Nomura
Securities International, Inc. ("Nomura"), Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.
("Oppenheimer") for use in heir respective financial valuations;
and (c) financial valuation analyses, if any, that were provided by
the Company's Board, and/or Nomura or Oppenheimer.
GigCapital3, Inc. operates as a private-to-public equity company.
The Company focuses on technology, media, and telecommunications
sectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 741-4977
Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
GOLDEN SPECIALTY: Faces Acosta Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE ACOSTA, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. GOLDEN SPECIALTY
FOODS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 21NWCV00003 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 5, 2021) challenges Defendants' systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the stated
provisions of the California Labor Code against the identified
group of employees including the Plaintiff.
Ms. Acosta alleges that the Defendants jointly and severally acted
intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees in failing to pay all meal
period wages and rest break wages, failing to properly calculate
and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide accurate
wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and owing during
employment and upon termination of employment, and failing to
reimburse all necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid or non-exempt employees are
"aggrieved employees" as defined by California Labor Code in that
they are all current or former employees who worked for Defendants
at any time during the period from October 15, 2019 to the
present.
Golden Specialty Foods, LLC is a food production company based in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Chancellor D. Nobles, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Kearney Suit Over 23% Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN KEARNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., DOUGLAS HIRSCH, TREVOR BEZDEK,
and KARSTEN VOERMANN, Case No. 2:21-cv-00175 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 8,
2021) is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons or entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired GoodRx securities between September 23, 2020,
and November 16, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
GoodRx purports to provide consumers with free information and
tools that allow them to compare prices and save on their
prescription drug purchases. At the time of the Company's September
2020 initial public offering, 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.
According to the complaint, the 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) Defendants were aware 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 timed
the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online
pharmaceutical business; (ii) accordingly, Defendants timed the IPO
to create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein;
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged about the new pharmacy offerings of Amazon
that would compete directly with GoodRx's platform, the price of
GoodRx common stock fell $10.51 per share, or 23%, to close at
$36.21 per share on November 17, 2020, the suit says.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website.
GoodRx Holdings serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
GREEK TAVERNA: Fails to Pay Cooks' OT Wages, Joaquin Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANDOVAL JOAQUIN, individually and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEK TAVERNA LLC d/b/a
TELLY'S TAVERNA and DIANNA LOISELLE, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00079-ERK-RML (E.D.N.Y., January 6,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for failure to pay
overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook
approximately from 2006 until July 2020.
The Plaintiff contends that despite regularly working more than 40
hours each week, the Defendants willfully failed to pay him and
other similarly situated their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to provide them with a statement with each
payment of wages, and failed to post or keep posted notices
explaining the minimum wage rights of their employees under the
FLSA and the NYLL.
Green Taverna LLC d/b/a Telly's Taverna operates a full-service
restaurant located at 2811 23rd Avenue, Astoria, New York. Dianna
Loiselle is the owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the
restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Tel: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 19-81259-CIV-ALTMAN/Brannon (S.D. Fla.), Judge Roy K.
Altman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed
the case with prejudice.
Defendant Greenlane sells tobacco products--and, in particular,
"vaporizers" and "e-cigarettes"--to approximately 9,700 smoke shops
and retailers throughout the United States and Canada. It also
sells products directly to consumers on its e-commerce websites.
On April 18, 2019, Greenlane went public through an initial public
offering ("IPO"), issuing $110 million in common stock at $17 per
share. Two months later, on June 19, 2019, its stock dropped to
about $11 per share and, two days after that, closed at $9.32.
Douglas Chabot and Yevgeny Goncharov were among the investors who
purchased Greenlane stock in April of 2019. Having lost money on
that investment when the stock tanked, they brought a putative
class action against Greenlane and some of its officers and
directors. They claim that the Defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact in a Form S-1
Registration Statement, a document companies are required to file
with the SEC before selling stocks in interstate commerce.
In September 2019, one of the Plaintiffs, Chris Hammond, brought a
putative class action against the Defendants in the Court. In
October of 2019, Judge Middlebrooks transferred to the Court a
related action filed by a second Plaintiff, Randall Mayer, against
some (but not all) of these same Defendants. The Court then
consolidated the two cases and appointed two other Plaintiffs, Mr.
Chabot and Mr. Goncharov, as the Lead Plaintiffs.
In March 2020, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the operative, amended
Complaint. The Defendants responded with a motion to dismiss,
which is now ripe for consideration. In their Motion, the
Defendants contend both that the Registration Statement was not
materially false or misleading and that Greenlane had no duty to
disclose the Proposed Ordinances.
The gravamen of the lawsuit is that, while Greenlane "touted" its
relationship with JUUL Labs, Inc.--a well-known e-cigarette
manufacturer--it omitted the fact that, one month before the IPO,
San Francisco city officials had proposed ordinances to the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors that, if successful, would ban
tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, that had not been
reviewed and approved by the FDA.
Judge Altman explains that in securities law parlance, such
omission was of questionable materiality, given Greenlane's
extensive disclosures about regulatory risks, the lack of certainty
that the ordinances would be enacted at all, and the absence of any
facts--at the time of the disclosure--from which a reasonable
company could infer that the ordinances, if enacted, would have a
meaningful impact on Greenlane's operations and profits. But, as a
matter of law, the information was immaterial because it was also
right there in the public domain, equally available to both
Greenlane and its investors.
Viewed in this way, the Judge holds that the information was part
of the "total mix of information" that comprised the disclosure
package. And the Plaintiffs do not allege (as do many successful
plaintiffs in these types of cases) that Greenlane withheld
information about the company that was uniquely within the
company's control.
Even assuming materiality, however, the Plaintiffs' claims still
fail, the Judge adds. The statute in question did not require
Greenlane to bury potential investors in an avalanche of facts by
disclosing all potentially-material information. Rather, the law
renders a material omission actionable only when (1) the company
had an affirmative duty to disclose the fact or (2) the fact was
necessary to make other statements in the registration statement
not misleading. The Plaintiffs cannot show that Greenlane had an
obligation to disclose these (proposed) ordinances because
Greenlane did disclose the trend towards more restrictive tobacco
regulation. And nothing in the Registration Statement was
misleading -- either on its own or because it was unaccompanied by
a description of the proposed ordinances.
In the end, Greenlane provided accurate information about its
commercial relationship with JUUL, and it candidly warned that
pending and future legislation created substantial risks to both
companies. Greenlane never suggested that it or its suppliers were
impervious to tobacco laws--nor did it ever undersell the degree of
risk it faced.
As his summation makes plain, Judge Altman concludes that the
Plaintiffs' claims are meritless and must be dismissed. He granted
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with prejudice the
case. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Any
pending motions are denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3g8xgh8 from Leagle.com.
H.O.P.E. NETWORK: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Chase Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRANDY CHASE, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE H.O.P.E. NETWORK, INC., and
ROBERT STAPLES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00026 (N.D. Ohio,
January 6, 2021) challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful
policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
Direct Support Professional (DSP), asserts that although she and
other similarly situated DSPs regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek, there were numerous instances that the Defendant did
not pay their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. In addition,
the Defendant failed to pay those times that they were required by
the Defendant to travel, which resulted in additional unpaid
overtime.
The Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of all
required and unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff alleges.
On behalf of herself and a class of current or former employees
employed by the Defendants in Ohio, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint as a collective and class action against the Defendant
seeking all available relief under the FLSA and OMFWSA.
The H.O.P.E. Network, Inc. provides home care services. Robert
Staples serves as the Corporate Defendant's Director of Operations.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East Ninth St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 230-2955
E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@olaborlaw.com
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: Fatal Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Finance
Direct, LLC. The case is styled as Jean Fatal, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Finance
Direct, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00111 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Healthcare Finance Direct --
https://www.healthcarefinancedirect.com/ -- offers an alternative
and generates installment loan agreements with patients, allowing
them to charge interest and mitigate risk of default.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Beylerian Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Serop J. Beylerian and Avedis Shanlian, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Hillstone Restaurant
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV44916, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-11580-ODW-RAO to the proceeding.
The case arises from issues related to constitutionality of a
federal or state statute and is assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright,
II.
Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates restaurants. The
Company offers burgers, ribs, seafood dishes, and other food
products. Hillstone Restaurant Group serves customers throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raffi Kassabian, Esq.
Samantha K. Carrasco, Esq.
Sareen Bezdikian, Esq.
BEZDIK KASSAB LAW GROUP
790 East Colorado Boulevard 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 499-6998
Facsimile: (626) 499-6993
E-mail: raffi@bezdikkassab.com
samantha@bezdikkassab.com
sareen@bezdikkassab.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis S. Ellis, Esq.
Katherine Frenck Murray, Esq.
Serli Polatoglu, Esq.
Eric M George, Esq.
BROWNE GEORGE ROSS O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY AND ELLIS LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: dellis@bgrfirm.com
kmurray@bgrfirm.com
spolatoglu@bgrfirm.com
egeorge@bgrfirm.com
HOAI 86TH INC: Tran Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Quan H. Tran, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. HOAI 86TH INC. d/b/a PHO HOAI and BRIAN NGO,
jointly and severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-00080 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6,
2021), is brought alleging that the Defendants are liable to the
Plaintiff for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensations, spread-of-houts wages, and such other relief
available by law and the that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Minimum Wage Act of
NYLL.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants between 65-78 hours per
week. The Plaintiff worked a spread of hours greater than 10 per
dat between 5-6 days per week. The Defendants willfully failed to
pay the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage. The Plaintiff worked
more than 40 hours each workweek, yet the Defendants willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation of on and
one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2018 to
March 2020 as a cook.
The Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing
business as Pho Hoai and located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
HORIZON FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Nash Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Horizon Freight Systems, Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MARVIN NASH v. HORIZON
FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01883-VC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 4, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order:
1. granting Nash's motion to certify a class of "California
drivers who contracted with and drove for Horizon from February 22,
2015 to the present."
2. denying 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 this case;
3. granting requests for judicial notice;
4. denying Horizon's motion to seal on the ground that it's
grossly overbroad. This denial was 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;
5. scheduling a case management conference on Tuesday, February 2,
at 2 p.m. via zoom.
Marvin Nash brought this suit against Horizon Freight Systems 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 this 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.
The Defendant is seeking a review of the order entered by Judge
Chhabria.
The appellate case is captioned as Marvin Nash v. Horizon Freight
Systems, Inc., Case No. 21-80000, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent MARVIN NASH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
Robin G. Workman, Esq.
WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
177 Post Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 782-3660
E-mail: rachel@workmanlawpc.com
robin@workmanlawpc.com
Defendant-Petitioner HORIZON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. is represented
by:
John Longyear Barber, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
E-mail: john.barber@lewisbrisbois.com
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Payne Files Suit in D. Columbia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard University.
The case is styled as Isaiah Payne, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Howard University, Case No.
1:20-cv-03792-DLF (D.C., Jan. 5, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Howard University -- https://home.howard.edu/ -- is a private,
federally chartered historically black university in Washington,
D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Nelson Sinclair, Esq.
SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE
201 North Charles Street, 26th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 385-9116
Fax: (410) 547-2432
Email: bsinclair@mdattorney.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Laurel Pyke Malson, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Phone: (202) 624-2576
Fax: (202) 628-5116
Email: lmalson@crowell.com
HUNGRY MARKETPLACE: Webb Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Virice Webb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUNGRY MARKETPLACE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00083
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2021), seek relief for the Collective under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and for the Class pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the New York Labor, to remedy the
Defendant's failure to pay all wages due and for recordkeeping
failures, in addition to injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was affected by the
Defendant's unlawful policy and practice of misclassifying Captains
as "independent contractors" and primarily compensating them based
on total of pre-determined number of hours estimated for each
catering job, rather than the number of actual hours worked within
a workweek, and any earned tips.
Through this practice, the Defendant unlawfully denied the
Plaintiff in the United States overtime premiums at a rate of at
least one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked
over forty in a week and engaged in record-keeping practices that
violated federal and state wage and hour laws. In regard to the
Plaintiff in New York, in violation of state wage and hour laws,
the Defendant failed to pay minimum wage and gap time/straight time
compensation for all hours worked under forty in a workweek; failed
to pay overtime premium compensation for hours worked in excess of
forty hours within a workweek, failed to provide reimbursements for
work-related expenses; and failed to provide the Plaintiff with
proper and accurate wage statements, says the complaint.
Hungry Marketplace, Inc. is a national application and web-based
catering company offering services nationwide, including in the
Greater New York City area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646)-430-7930
Fax: (646)-349-2504
IDEAL INDUSTRIES: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ideal Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Ideal Industries, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00119 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ideal Industries -- https://www.idealindustries.com/ -- is an
American company that produces connectors, hand tools, testers, and
meters for the electrical and telecommunications industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
ILLINOIS: McFarlan "SORA" Suit Seeks Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY MCFARLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
State Police, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action on behalf of:
"all individuals in the State of Illinois currently on the
Illinois Sex Offender Registry who have criminal
convictions requiring registration for a period of ten
years;" and
2. appointing their attorneys as class counsel.
The Plaintiff Tommy McFarland is a registrant who has twice had his
registration period extended pursuant to 730 ILCS 150/7, despite
never having been convicted of any violation of Illinois Sex
Offender Registration Act (SORA). He contends that the Director's
process for administratively extending registration periods
pursuant to 730 ILCS 150/7 and 20 Ill. Adm. Code section 1280.40(a)
violates the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because it
results in a deprivation of liberty without sufficient notice and
opportunity to be heard. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
individually and on behalf of a class of all individuals in
Illinois who are subject the statute.
Pursuant to the SORA, individuals who have been convicted of
certain sex offenses are required to register as sex offenders for
a period of ten years following their conviction or discharge from
the Illinois Department of Corrections. Failure to register and/or
providing false registration information is a Class felony.
The Illinois State Police is the state police force of Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XwQXLd
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and -
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
IMPERFECT FOODS: Reed Files Class Suit in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperfect Foods,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as DELVIN REED, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMPERFECT FOODS, INC.
and DOES 1 TO 10 inclusive, Case No. CGC20588656 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Dec. 29, 2020).
The case is brought over complaints by non-exempt employees.
A case management conference is set for June 2, 2021, before Judge
Samuel K. Feng.
Imperfect Foods Inc. distributes food products. The Company
supplies fruits and vegetables which are rejected by grocery
stores. Imperfect Foods serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Blvd.
Stockton, CA 95207
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Wright Files Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Flavors
& Fragrances Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jenny Wright,
Natalie Soud, James Cobb, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., IFF
Chemical Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 6,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
International Flavors & Fragrances -- https://www.iff.com/ -- is an
American corporation that produces flavors, fragrances, and
cosmetic actives, which it markets globally.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell A. Stone, Esq.
MITCHELL A. STONE, P.A.
1830 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Phone: (904) 396-3335
Email: mitch@jacksonvilledefense.com
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Hill Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW HILL, on behalf of himself and all members
of the putative class v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG03529, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on January 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00015 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, and non-compliant wage statements.
International Paper Company is an American pulp and paper company
based in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq.
Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
Jason A. Fischbein, Esq.
Brittany M. Wunderlich, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
E-mail: dmoore@fisherphillips.com
aolsen@fisherphillips.com
jfischbein@fisherphillips.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Marthaller Says Coffee Makes Fewer Cups Than Labeled
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE MARTHALLER v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and THE FOLGER COFFEE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00021-SMJ (E.D. Wash., Jan. 8, 2021) is
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and as representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, arising out of the Defendants'
false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their Folgers
ground coffee products.
According to the complaint, in or about September 2020, Ms.
Marthaller purchased a 25.4 oz canister of Folgers Coffee House
Blend from a Winco in Spokane, Washington for her own personal use.
In purchasing the product, she saw and relied on the Defendant's
representations made on the packaging that the canister "MAKES UP
TO 210 6 FL OZ CUPS." But in reality, the canister contained only
enough ground coffee to make approximately 169 6 fl. oz. cups of
coffee. The Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and lost money as a
result of the Defendants' misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive
practices, the suit says.
The J.M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker and Smucker's, is
an American manufacturer of jam, peanut butter, jelly, fruit
syrups, beverages, shortening, ice cream toppings, and other
products in North America.
Folgers Coffee is a brand of coffee produced in the United States,
and sold there, in Canada and in Mexico. It forms part of the food
and beverage division of The J.M. Smucker Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Thompson Sues Over Folgers Coffee False Ad
--------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY and THE
FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00009 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 8,
2021), is brought against the Defendants based on the Defendants'
false and deceptive advertising and labeling of their Folgers
ground coffee products; and to seek relief in this action
individually, and on behalf individuals who purchased Defendants'
falsely and deceptively labeled Folgers ground coffee products
during the statute of limitations period, for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have systematically
overstated the number of servings of coffee that can be made from
Folgers ground coffee products in order to induce consumer
purchases and to charge consumers more for these products. The
Defendants have sold the Folgers ground coffee products to
consumers based on the representation that they contain enough
ground coffee to make up to a specific number of servings (e.g.,
"MAKES UP TO 240 6 FL OZ CUPS"). However, by following the
Defendants' own preparation instructions, the Folgers ground coffee
products do not contain nearly enough ground coffee to make the
number of servings represented, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Folgers ground
coffee products because they reasonably believed -- based on
Defendants' misrepresentations -- that these products contained
enough coffee to make the specified number of servings. Had the
Plaintiff and other consumers known the truth, they would have paid
less for them, or would not have purchased them at all. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other consumers have been deceived and
have suffered economic injury, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchases Folgers ground coffee products (usually
Folgers Classic Roast) approximately once every two weeks from his
local H-E-B, Walmart, and Brookshires grocery stores.
The J.M. Smucker Company is one of the world's biggest packaged
goods companies and it owns the Folgers brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Phone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
Email: bonner@walshpllc.com
JCJB MARKETING: Baltimore Files TCPA Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCJB Marketing Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Baltimore, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. JCJB Marketing Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10045-ADB (D. Mass., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
JCJB Marketing Inc. is located in Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Covachuela Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORBIN COVACHUELA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JERSEY FIRESTOP, LLC, DANIEL HINOJOSA, and DAVID HINOJOSA, Case No.
3:20-cv-08806-AET-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on February 1, 2021 to enter an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Condition
Certification pursuant to Section 216(b) of the proposed
collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class defined
as:
"all "Laborers" and "Drivers" who worked in the
Defendants' business known as Jersey Firestop at any time
in the past three years;
2. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery;
3. directing the Defendants, within 10 days of entry of the
Order, to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel a list in
electronic format, of all individuals who worked during
the past three years as "Laborers" and/or "Drivers" in the
Defendants' business known as Jersey Firestop, their
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, and dates of employment; and
4. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Authorized
Notice:
-- the "Court-Authorized Notice of Lawsuit Regarding Unpaid
Wages" shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the
Defendants' garage located outside of their main office,
and will be sent via first class U.S. mail and, where
possible, via email and text message, to all individuals
who worked for Defendants as "Laborers," and/or "Drivers"
during the past three years.
The Plaintiff Covachuela initiated the matter by complaint filed
July 13, 2020, seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the FLSA, on behalf of himself and current and former
employees of the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 2018 until
October 23, 2019 as a non-exempt full-time employee.
David and Daniel operate Jersey Firestop, a mechanical insulation
company and certified firestop contractor that provides firestop
and insulation products and installation to residential,
commercial, and industrial facilities. Jersey Firestop is located
at 317 E 2nd Street, Bound Brook, New Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated
Jan. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2LLzL1G at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs, are:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
JOHNSON CONTROLS: To Pay Residents $17.5M to Settle PFAS Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hubbuch at Wisconsin State Journal reports that Johnson
Controls has agreed to pay $17.5 million to Peshtigo-area residents
whose water was contaminated by "forever chemicals" from a
manufacturing plant in Marinette.
The agreement announced Thursday is part of a settlement in a 2018
class-action lawsuit against the company's Tyco Fire Products
subsidiary and is subject to court approval.
In a statement, the company said the settlement is not an admission
of wrongdoing but "expresses our desire to resolve this litigation
so that we can focus on the permanent solutions we have identified
to get rid of the PFAS from the (Fire Technology Center)."
"This is an important part of our effort to make this situation
right," said company spokeswoman Katie McGinty.
Under the proposed settlement, anyone who lived or owned property
in the covered part of the town of Peshtigo for at least a year
since 1965 will be eligible for compensation. According to the
settlement, there are more than 300 homes in the roughly
3-square-mile area south of Marinette.
The settlement does not cover roughly two dozen wells contaminated
by sludge from the Marinette wastewater treatment plant that was
spread on farm fields in the surrounding area.
McGinty said PFAS in those biosolids came from "a much broader
arena of players," adding that after three years of study Tyco has
identified "precisely where our PFAS is."
"We make no bones about the fact that Tyco's activities have
contributed PFAS to the environment," McGinty said. "We're totally
responsible for anything that came from our actions."
In a statement, an attorney representing the plaintiffs said the
settlement, the first of its kind in a nationwide litigation, is a
"huge milestone" for people harmed by fluorinated firefighting
foam, known as AFFF.
"This settlement marks a significant step in victims' efforts to
secure just compensation for those impacted by PFAS contamination
caused by AFFF," said Paul Napoli. "But there is still more work to
do as we continue to seek to hold the manufacturers of these
chemicals accountable for the harm they've inflicted on individuals
and the environment."
Dozens of private wells in the Marinette and Peshtigo area have
been contaminated with PFAS believed to have originated from
firefighting foam.
Tyco discovered in 2013 that soil and well contamination on its
Marinette fire training property contained PFAS. Four years later,
the company acknowledged that the chemicals had spread beyond the
facility. The state Department of Natural Resources is monitoring
what could be the state's largest environmental cleanup.
McGinty said the company is actively pursuing cleanup plans for
groundwater, surface water and soil, and will send the PFAS to
out-of-state hazardous waste facilities.
Johnson Controls, a multinational conglomerate that makes fire,
HVAC and security equipment for buildings, has set aside $140
million to cover cleanup costs.
"We're going after PFAS and we're going to get rid of PFAS,"
McGinty said. "We're going to ensure that we have, again, healthy
soils, that we're going to be delivering clean and safe drinking
water and surface water."
PFAS have been linked to cancer, liver disease and thyroid
problems, and may interfere with the effectiveness of vaccines. A
recent study also found exposure to high levels of two common
compounds leads to lower sperm count and smaller penises.
Concerning levels of PFAS have been found throughout Wisconsin in
drinking water, groundwater, surface water, soil, sediments, air,
fish and wildlife, as well as in human blood samples.
Several contaminated sites at the Dane County Regional Airport have
been linked to training areas used for decades by the Wisconsin Air
National Guard and local fire departments.[GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Arbitration Bid in Thomas Suit Denied W/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSH THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO, a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. C20-5902 BHS (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied without prejudice
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
Plaintiff Thomas took out an Amazon Rewards Visa Signature credit
card from Chase Bank in 2015. Chase mailed Thomas the card and a
copy of the Cardmember Agreement, which provides both that use of
the account indicates acceptance of the terms and that the terms
may be added to or deleted at any time.
In 2019, following its merger with Chase, JPMC sent Thomas a notice
informing him, among other things, that an arbitration provision
was being added to the Cardmember Agreement and that he could opt
out through mailing a notice to JPMC at P.O. Box 15298, in
Wilmington, Delaware 19850-5298, by Aug. 8, 2019. The notice
explained that rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent
by electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or
effective.
Thomas declares that on June 11, 2019, he sent a letter rejecting
the arbitration agreement. He also declares that around the same
date, he believes he also called their customer service department
and told them he wanted to opt out of the arbitration agreement.
Thomas provided a copy of the letter, addressed to Chase, P.O. Box
152298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. JPMC asserts that it did not
receive the letter, as shown by the lack of a note in Thomas'
account. Thomas does not dispute that he addressed his letter to
the wrong P.O. Box (adding an additional "2" to the box number).
In May 2020, Thomas enrolled in JPMC's "COVID-19 Payment
Assistance" program to defer his credit card payments for three
months. He alleges that on Aug. 11, 2020, he began receiving
robocalls related to his payments though his first payment was not
due until Sept. 1, 2020. He received another deferral, but again
began receiving robocalls after an interval.
Plaintiff Thomas now brings a putative class action against JPMC
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and
violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On Oct. 26, 2020, JPMC moved to compel arbitration on an individual
basis and stay. On Nov. 16, 2020, Thomas responded.
The parties dispute whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.
Thomas contends that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether he opted out of the arbitration agreement and seeks
limited discovery on JPMC's receipt of his communications. JPMC
argues no valid opt-out occurred because (1) the opt-out letter was
misaddressed and (2) verbal opt-out was not available under the
provision's terms.
In the alternative, it questions the authenticity of Thomas'
opt-out letter, pointing out that Thomas submitted and withdrew an
opt-out letter in another matter following defense counsel's
allegation that it was fraudulent. JMPC thus seeks limited
discovery including a review of the metadata associated with the
Word file used to create the purported opt-out letter as well as
proof of transmission and/or receipt so the Court can properly
assess the credibility of the Plaintiff's declaration.
Mr. Thomas argues that JMPC mischaracterizes the withdrawal in the
other proceeding and moves to strike the characterization as
impertinent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), but does not dispute that
he withdrew that letter. He seeks limited discovery of JPMC's
records for his account, copies of telephone calls and notes
regarding the calls between May 21, 2019 and Aug. 9, 2019, all
written communications JPMC received from Thomas during the same
period, and all JPMC's internal notes and communications regarding
his account during the same period. JPMC counters that as it has
already confirmed it has no record of a valid opt-out, the
additional discovery Thomas proposes would serve no purpose.
Judge Settle concludes that the limited discovery proposed by each
party may allow it to determine whether there is any genuine
dispute of fact as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate,
and if not, to decide the issue as a matter of law. The parties
will meet and confer regarding the discovery and submit a proposed
discovery plan for the Court. Therefore, the Judge denied JPMC's
motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5s3kog4 from Leagle.com.
K12 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 K12 Inc.
("K12" or "the Company") (NYSE:LRN) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 27,
2020 and September 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 here 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. K12 failed to build and maintain the
necessary technology, infrastructure, and knowledgebase necessary
to support increased demand for distance learning caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Company lacked the appropriate cybersecurity
measures necessary to prevent its systems from being disabled by
bad actors. The Company failed to provide support and training to
educators, parents, and students. 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 K12, 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]
KROGER COMPANY: Mullins to Send Postcards to Class of Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Mullins, v. The
Kroger Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00964-MRB (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order that the
Plaintiff's counsel may transmit, at Plaintiff's cost, supplemental
notice of this lawsuit to putative collective members via reminder
postcards to be mailed 30 days before the close of the opt-in
period.
The Court is mindful of the privacy interests of potential
plaintiffs and not convinced that supplementary notice via text
message is necessary. However, in an excess of caution due to the
unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and based on the
facts of this specific case, the Court will permit Plaintiff to
send reminder postcards to putative collective members. The
Defendants opposed Plaintiff's request. The Court held a telephone
status conference on this matter on January 7, 2021.
The Plaintiff requested permission to send supplementary
court-authorized notice of this action through a text message and
reminder postcard to:
"current and former Assistant Store Managers who worked at
the Defendants' Fry's Food and Drug stores informing them
of their right to opt-in to this case (Order granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally
Certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and
Authorize Notice)."
Kroger operates supermarkets and convenience stores in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35weUXm at no extra charge.[CC]
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Farah's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Farah v. Logisticare
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00578 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Roseann Ketchmark entered an order finding as moot to certify class
per amended motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Fair Labor Standards Act.
LogistiCare provides non emergency medical transportation
management services.
LOGIX FEDERAL: Ketayi Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Logix Federal Credit
Union. The case is styled as Miryam Ketayi, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Logix Federal Credit Union,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00190 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Logix Federal Credit Union -- https://www.logixbanking.com/ --
operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial
solutions such as loans, investment, deposit accounts, insurance,
security, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
MANPOWER INC: Zielinski Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manpower, Inc. The
case is styled as Parker Zielinski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Manpower, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-05004-TLB (W.D. Ark., Jan. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
ManpowerGroup -- https://www.manpowergroup.com/ -- is a Fortune 500
American multinational corporation headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Burks, Esq.
WH LAW, PLLC
1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 255-7577
Fax: (501) 222-3027
Email: chris@wh.law
MARS INCORPORATED: Nieman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARS, INCORPORATED d/b/a M&M'S, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-00044 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 5, 2021) seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that beginning on or about August 3, 2018,
Mr. Nieman received a text message from Defendant on his cellular
telephone number ending in -2427, in an attempt to solicit him to
purchase Defendants' products. The Defendants did not possess
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system on her cellular telephone.
Mars Inc. is a closely-held company known for treats like M&M's and
Snickers bars.[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
MDL 2924: Court Nixed Three Zantac Class Action Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL 2924, Case No. 9:20-md-02924-RLR (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order granting
the branded defendants' Rule 12 partial motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' three complaints as preempted by federal law.
The Defendants contend in the Motion to Dismiss that the
design-defect claims against them are pre-empted because they could
not change the design of ranitidine products without U.S. Food and
Drug Administration approval while remaining in compliance with
federal law. And, 21 U.S.C. section 379r expressly pre-empts the
Plaintiffs' claims that seek to recover refunds for the purchase of
over-the-counter (OTC) ranitidine products.
The Plaintiffs respond that none of their claims against the
Defendants are pre-empted. Their design-defect claims are not
pre-empted because the claims are based on ranitidine products that
were misbranded when sold, on labeling defects that the Defendants
could have remedied without FDA approval, and on GSK's failure to
propose a different drug formulation and/or different labeling to
the FDA when seeking the initial approval to market ranitidine
products.
The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants have
focused on the pre-emption of a remedy in lieu of the pre-emption
of a claim. The Defendants' argument is not that the Plaintiffs'
claims are pre-empted because of the remedy (a refund) that the
Plaintiffs seek; the Defendants' argument is that the Plaintiffs
have not suffered a personal injury that, under federal law, is
required for a claim to qualify as a product liability claim.
The Court concludes that Congress did not intend for any state to
have the authority, under the section 379r(e) savings clause, to
classify a claim as a product liability claim when the plaintiff
did not suffer a personal injury. Thus, any claim for a refund for
the purchase of OTC ranitidine products that is premised upon the
allegation that Plaintiffs suffered no personal injury -- to
themselves or to their property -- is not saved under the section
379r savings clause.
The Plaintiffs filed three Master Complaints on June 22, 2020. The
Plaintiffs contend that the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks
down into N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and has caused thousands
of consumers of ranitidine products to develop various forms of
cancer. The Plaintiffs allege that "a single pill of ranitidine can
contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of times higher" than
the FDA's allowable limit.
Master Personal Injury Complaint:
-- All individuals who file a Short Form Complaint
(collectively, the "MPIC Plaintiffs") adopt the MPIC. The
MPIC Plaintiffs allege that they developed cancers from
taking ranitidine products.
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint:
-- One hundred and eighty-three named individuals
(collectively, the "CCCAC Plaintiffs") bring the CCCAC on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
The CCCAC Plaintiffs are citizens of nearly every state,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Consolidated Third-Party Payor Class Complaint:
-- The NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, the Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local Union 630, and the Indiana Laborers
Welfare Fund (collectively, the "CTPPCC Plaintiffs") bring
the CTPPCC on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA, the
Plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On February 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
this multi-district litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned.
This case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its
generic forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric
treatments. The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active
ingredient in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980's, first by prescription
and later as an OTC medication. In 1983, the FDA approved the sale
of prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first prescription
drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XxBBpQ at no extra charge.[CC]
MEDIGAPDIRECT INC: Amado Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Amado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDIGAPDIRECT, INC., Case No. CACE-21-000478 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 9, 2021), is brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from the Defendant's
violations of the TCPA.
To promote its insurance services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited telemarketing, including prerecorded message calls and
text messages. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class Members and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of San Bruno, California.
The Defendant is a Florida corporation that maintains its primary
place of business and headquarters in Pompano Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-628-5793
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 786.469.4496
Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
MEDRISK, LLC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Neighborhood JFPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEIGHBORHOOD NEUROPATHY CENTER OF RENO, LLC,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. MEDRISK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00619-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada denied without prejudice
MedRisk's motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff Neighborhood
Neuropathy's class action complaint.
MedRisk is a managed care organization which primarily works on
workers' compensation claims. It sometimes contracts with various
companies to serve as an intermediary between its clients and
health care providers. One such company is OptumHealth
CareSolutions, Inc. Neighborhood Neuropathy is a health care
provider in Optum's network. Because of the relationship, MedRisk
received Neighborhood Neuropathy's contact information.
The action concerns nine faxes that MedRisk sent Neighborhood
Neuropathy in 2019. These faxes notified Neighborhood Neuropathy
of MedRisk's new and existing clients. The top of each fax
contained MedRisk's logo as well as the heading "Network News."
Each fax usually notified Neighborhood Neuropathy of a "new
client," and then asked that "all patients associated with the
companies listed should be recognized and processed as a MedRisk
network patient." None of these faxes included an opt-out notice
setting forth a way the recipient could ask MedRisk not to fax any
more notices in the future.
The Complaint alleges MedRisk violated the Junk Fax Prevention Act
by sending unsolicited advertisements that fail to contain an
opt-out notice, as the statute requires. Neighborhood Neuropathy
seeks to certify a class of similarly situated parties who also
received faxes from MedRisk. MedRisk argues, in its motion for
summary judgment, that it is entitled to the entry of judgment in
its favor because the faxes did not constitute "unsolicited
advertisements" under the statute, and therefore did not need to
contain opt-out notices.
Judge Hicks states that the sole dispute in the matter is whether
MedRisk's faxes were "unsolicited advertisements." He finds that
summary judgment is inappropriate at this juncture. First, unlike
the informational faxes in Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medco
Health Sols., Inc., 788 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2015), Neighborhood
Neuropathy is not being asked to perform a service to the benefit
of its patients, but rather, is being asked to perform a service
for MedRisk. That is, ensure that MedRisk appears on the proper
billing statement. Second, while the service may very well be
merely an "indirect" benefit to MedRisk like in Optum, no discovery
has taken place to determine the exact nature of MedRisk's business
model. Therefore, summary judgment at this time will be delayed
until there has been more of an opportunity to gather facts or
evidence surrounding how MedRisk receives a benefit from the
faxes.
The Judge further finds that although it was not improper for
MedRisk to file an early summary judgment motion, Neighborhood
Neuropathy has not had a realistic opportunity to pursue discovery
before filing a response. The summary judgment motion was filed
approximately one month after the initial discovery hearing, and
before any actual discovery took place. Therefore, Neighborhood
Neuropathy cannot be expected to frame its motion with great
specificity as to the kind of discovery likely to turn up useful
information, as the ground for such specificity has not yet been
laid.
Still, Neighborhood Neuropathy has identified important areas of
inquiry, including how exactly MedRisk receives a benefit from the
faxes. Accordingly, until there exists a more developed
evidentiary record as to whether the faxes constitute a direct or
indirect benefit to MedRisk, consideration of summary judgment will
be deferred pursuant to Rule 56(d).
MedRisk's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice
and Neighborhood Neuropathy's request under FRCP 56(d) to defer
consideration of MedRisk's motion for summary judgment is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y446dx9x from Leagle.com.
METHODIST HEALTH: Reed FLSA Suit Seeks Employees Collective Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE M. REED and JULIA
K. MCLINDEN, individually and on behalf of a collective of persons
similarly situated, v. METHODIST HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, an
Illinois Corporation, d/b/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH-PEKIN HOSPITAL,
UNITYPOINT HEALTH-METHODIST HOSPITAL & UNITYPOINT HEALTH-PROCTOR
HOSPITAL; and PROGRESSIVE HEALTH SYSTEMS, Case No.
1:19-cv-01412-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. preliminarily certifying the collective defined as:
"all persons employed by Methodist Health Services
Corporation or Progressive Health Systems in Case
Management, Utilization Review, or similar positions in
the Defendants' hospitals or other health care facilities
in the State of Illinois from December 23, 2016, through
the present, who were classified or treated by Defendants
as "exempt" from the overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
2. appointing their counsel as counsel for the collective;
3. requiring the production by the Defendants of a class list
in Excel format of all persons employed by Health Services
Corporation and/or Progressive Health Systems in Case
Management, Utilization Review, and similar positions in
the Defendants' hospitals or other health care facilities
in the State of Illinois from December 23, 2016 to the
present, including their name, last known address, email
address, telephone number, dates of employment, location
of employment, last four digits of their social security
number, and date of birth;
4. authorizing the distribution of notice; and
5. providing for such other and further relief as this Court
may deem appropriate in this matter.
The Plaintiffs filed this action against the Defendants, on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated employees who were not
paid overtime, because they have been misclassified as exempt from
the application of state and federal overtime compensation laws.
Methodist Health Services provides health care services. The
Hospital offers emergency care, cardiology, oncology, surgery,
wound care, neurology, and pediatric services. Methodist Health
Services serves patient in the State of Illinois and Iowa.
Progressive Health Systems operates as a non-profit organization.
The Organization offers diagnostic services, emergency care,
surgical services, home health care, rehab services, urology,
pediatrics, heart care, and lung care services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i88keY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carol Coplan Babbitt, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CAROL COPLAN BABBITT
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone (312) 435-9775
E-mail: carol@ccbabbittlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
65 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 107
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 789-9700
E-mail: jeff@JGBrownlaw.com
- and -
Carl Reardon, Esq.
CARL F REARDON LAW FIRM
120 Illini Drive
East Peoria, IL 61611
Telephone: (309) 699-6767
E-mail: CarlReardon@comcast.net
MIDLAND CREDIT: Beneli Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Noemi Beneli, individually
an on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00016-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan.
6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MINDGEEK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Child Sexual Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario resident has started a class-action lawsuit in Quebec
against Pornhub's parent company MindGeek alleging it has profited
off of child sexual abuse material and non-consensual content since
2007.
The case was brought by Siskinds, Desmeules Avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l.
in collaboration with Sotos Class Actions.
It alleges that MindGeek illegally disseminated intimate videos and
photos including depictions of child sexual abuse, sexual assault
of adults, as well as intimate images of adults who did not consent
to the public dissemination of their images.
The lawsuit, which requires court certification, is seeking
hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for people
worldwide.
MindGeek couldn't be immediately reached for comment and the
lawsuit contains allegations that have not been proven in court.
The lawsuit follows one filed in December in California by 40 women
who claim the Montreal-based company knew or should have known that
one of its commercial partners regularly used fraud and coercion to
get women to appear in videos. [GN]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Hampton Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC. The case is styled as Rhonda Hampton, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00011-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C., Jan. 5,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. -- https://monarchrm.com/ --
operates as a collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Shapiro, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. ORCUTT, P.C.
1738 Hillandale Rd., Suite D
Durham, NC 27705
Phone: (919) 286-1695
Email: cshapiro@johnorcutt.com
MORGAN STEEL: Faces Williams Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony P. Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Morgan Steel LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02008 (W.D. Tenn.,
Jan. 5, 2021) seeks declaratory relief, compensation for work hours
for which the Plaintiff was unpaid or underpaid, including overtime
premiums for all hours worked over 40 hours in a work week,
liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
the action.
Mr. Williams was hired by Morgan Steel on or about September 9,
2019 until his termination on or about November 25, 2020. During
his employment, Mr. Williams held the positions of loader and
saw-operator, and as such he should have been classified by Morgan
Steel as a non-exempt employee under the FLSA.
Morgan Steel LLC is a steel distributor in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 737-7740
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
MORROW-MEADOWS: Final Approval of Deal in Wage & Hour Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MORROW-MEADOWS WAGE AND HOUR CASES, 2d Civ. No.
B298816 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Six:
(i) vacated the trial court's orders certifying the
coordinated cases as a class action and granting final
approval of the settlement, entered March 6 and 27, 2019;
(ii) reversed the judgment; and
(iii) remanded with directions to articulate a statement of
reasons for approving or denying class certification.
Morrow-Meadows is an electrical contractor. About 95% of its
hourly employees are unionized field workers. The other 5% are
nonunionized office workers. The appeal involves a pair of complex
civil actions that were coordinated for trial.
The first was a class action brought against the Morrow-Meadows by
Appellants Marie Pacheco and Rafael Robinson that alleged
violations of various Labor Code and Business and Professions Code
provisions. It did not seek relief pursuant to the Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The second was brought by Araceli
Noriega. In contrast to the Pacheco action, the Noriega action did
not seek class-wide relief, but did seek PAGA relief.
Ms. Pacheco is a former Morrow-Meadows employee. In August 2015,
she filed a class action complaint on behalf of all current and
former hourly employees who had worked for Morrow-Meadows in
California since August 2011. In it, she alleged that
Morrow-Meadows did not: (1) pay minimum wages, (2) pay overtime
wages, (3) timely pay wages, (4) reimburse business expenses, (5)
provide meal and rest periods, (6) provide compliant wage
statements, or (7) keep the requisite payroll records. She also
alleged that Morrow-Meadows engaged in unlawful business practices.
She sought class-wide damages for unpaid wages, premium wages,
actual damages, restitution of unpaid wages, statutory penalties,
interest, and attorney fees, but did not seek PAGA relief.
Robinson was added as a named Plaintiff the following year.
Ms. Noriega filed her complaint in October 2015. She alleged
causes of action for minimum wage violations, overtime violations,
failure to reimburse business expenses, meal and rest period
violations, wage statement violations, and failure to pay wages
upon separation. Noriega brought her complaint as a representative
of the State of California pursuant to PAGA, not as a class action.
She sought unpaid wages, statutory civil penalties, interest, and
attorney fees on behalf of Morrow-Meadows's employees who had
worked for the company during the previous year.
Morrow-Meadows petitioned for coordination of the two actions.
Noriega opposed coordination, claiming that her case was "a purely
PAGA action" requiring only limited discovery. Her attorney also
stated that he did not intend to represent unionized employees.
The actions were coordinated over Noriega's objections.
After the actions were coordinated for trial, Noriega amended her
complaint to encompass the claims set forth in the Pacheco
complaint. She then entered into a settlement agreement with
Morrow-Meadows that released all claims against the company. The
trial court certified the class action, approved the settlement,
and entered judgment, accordingly.
The Appellants contend the court erred when it: (1) deemed Noriega
an adequate class representative, and (2) approved the settlement.
The Appellate Court agrees with the Appellants' first contention,
does not reach the second. It cannot determine whether the trial
court's reasons for certifying the coordinated cases as a class
action were erroneous because the court did not articulate any
basis for its finding that Noriega could adequately represent the
settlement class. Though the court parroted the ultimate finding
needed to grant class certification, it did not provide any insight
into its analytic route in reaching that finding.
When it preliminarily granted certification, the court stated that
Noriega was "qualified and suitable" to serve as class
representative because she would "fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. But it did not explain why it reached that
conclusion. Nor did it provide an explanation at the final
approval hearing. The court's failure to explain itself is fatal.
Neither Morrow-Meadows nor Noriega point to anything in the record
to support a contrary conclusion, the Appellate Court opines.
Morrow-Meadows notes that Noriega submitted a declaration detailing
the work she had done in the case, while her attorney's declaration
noted his experience in class action litigation. Were the case
subject to normal appellate review standards, these declarations
might provide support for the trial court's finding that Noriega
would be an adequate class representative. But this is an appeal of
a class action. To turn to the record to concoct some basis for
the trial court's grant of certification is to abolish the relevant
standard of review and apply ordinary appellate review contrary to
the legion of cases that prohibit appellate revisionism.
Ms. Noriega similarly urges the Court to rely on her declaration,
noting that the trial court cited it when it concluded that she was
entitled to an incentive award. That again ignores the standard of
review in class action appeals, and instead would require the
Appellate Court to infer a basis for the court's determination that
Noriega would have fairly and adequately represented the class
where no explanation was given. That the Court cannot do. The
trial court abused its discretion when it failed to explain why
Noriega was an adequate class representative. Reversal is,
therefore, required.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court (i) vacated the orders certifying
the coordinated cases as a class action and granting final approval
of the settlement, entered March 6 and 27, 2019; and (ii) reversed
the judgment. It remanded the matter to the trial court with
directions to articulate a statement of reasons for approving or
denying class certification. The Appellants will recover their
costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2fm2e2b from Leagle.com.
Lawyers for Justice, Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@calljustice.com --
Arby Aiwazian -- arby@calljustice.com -- and Joanna Ghosh --
joanna@lfjpc.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Stuart Kane, Bruce D. May -- bmay@stuartkane.com -- Shane P. Criqui
-- scriqui@stuartkane.com -- and Patricia H. Jun, for Defendant and
Respondent.
Sullivan Law Group, William Bransfield Sullivan and Eric Keith
Yaeckel -- Yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- for Respondent.
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL LENOROWITZ, individually and of behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MOSQUITO SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC, MOSQUITO
SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01922-JBA (D. Conn., Dec. 24, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' conduct of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone and/or landline, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant left a pre-recorded
message with the hopes of soliciting business from the Plaintiff,
on his telephone voicemail system, without prior express consent,
using an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Mosquito Squad businesses offer certain outdoor pest control
services and equipment, including the sales, design, installation
and servicing of outdoor misting systems, barrier treatment
services, and other pest elimination and control systems for both
residential and commercial use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: YZelman@MarcusZelman.com
NEW YORK: Harper Files ADA Suit v. Cuomo, et al.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cuomo, et al. The
case is styled as Allen Harper, Jose Leon, Ranfis Perez, Release
Aging People in Prison Campaign "RAPP", on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Andrew Cuomo, in his official
capacity as the Governor of the State of New York; New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; Anthony J.
Annucci, in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision;
John Morley, M.D., in his official capacity as the Deputy
Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; Jeffrey
Tedford, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of
Adirondack Correctional Facility; Case No. 9:21-cv-00019-LEK-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Andrew Mark Cuomo is an American politician, author and lawyer
serving as the 56th and current Governor of New York since
2011.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Livengood, Esq.
Sasha Samberg-Champion, Esq.
RELMAN COLFAX PLLC
1225 19th St, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 728-1888
Email: rlivengood@relmanlaw.com
ssamberg-champion@relmanlaw.com
- and -
Stefen R. Short, Esq.
LEGAL AID SOCIETY-NY OFFICE
199 Water Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 577-3935
Fax: (646) 616-4225
Email: sshort@legal-aid.org
Prisoners Rights Project
NEW YORK: Matzell Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony J. Annucci,
Acting DOCCS Commissioner, et al. The case is captioned as Michael
Matzell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthony J. Annucci, Acting DOCCS Commissioner, Jeffrey
McKoy, Deputy DOCCS Commissioner, Bruce Yelich, Superintendent,
Stanley Barton, Deputy Superintendent of Programs, Kay Heading
Smith, Coordinator, Elizabeth Laramay, Coordinator, Jane Boyea,
Coordinator; and John/Jane Does 1-10, Case No.
9:20-cv-01605-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the prisoners'
civil rights and is assigned to Judge David N. Hurd.
Anthony J. Annucci is sued in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision (DOCCS).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Debra L. Greenberger, Esq.
Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Esq.
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF, ABADY, WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 763-5000
E-mail: dgreenberger@ecbawm.com
krosenfeld@ecbawm.com
NORTHECOMM LLC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northecomm, LLC. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Northecomm, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00120 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Northcomm LLC -- http://www.northcomm.com/-- is located in East
Wenatchee, WA, United States and is part of the Power Line &
Telecommunications Infrastructure Construction Contractors
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Settles Cobra Sexual Health Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in the Cobra Sexual Energy
Sales Practices Litigation, a class action lawsuit. The proposed
settlement establishes a $100,000 settlement fund. Class members
may be eligible for cash payments of up to $100.
On November 9, 2020, United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge Andre Birotte Jr, preliminarily
approved a settlement of a lawsuit between Nutraceutical and
purchasers of Cobra Sexual Energy. The class action claims the
herbal supplement Cobra Sexual Energy is falsely advertised and an
unapproved aphrodisiac in violation of California law. The
defendant strongly denies this, and the Court has made no decision
on these issues. The case was litigated for seven years, and rather
than continue litigating the case in court, the two sides have
agreed to a class action settlement.
The proposed settlement establishes a $100,000 settlement fund and
eligible class members may be eligible for cash payments of up to
$100 if they have a proof of purchase and up to $10 if they do not
have a proof of purchase. In addition to the cash relief, the
defendant has also agreed to make certain changes to Cobra's
label.
You may be a member of the settlement class if you purchased any
Cobra Sexual Energy product in California between August 9, 2014
and December 31, 2020. A class action settlement gives you certain
rights, including the right to make a claim for your share of a
cash settlement fund, and also has certain deadlines.
You now have the following options. First, the attorneys who filed
the case and were appointed to represent you recommend that you go
to the settlement website (CobraLawsuit.com) and file a claim form,
and then receive a payment if the Court approves the settlement.
Second, you can ignore this notice and do nothing. You will not get
a settlement payment, but you will give up the right to sue over
claims related to Cobra's labels and advertising, though not for
personal injury. Third, you can exclude yourself. If you exclude
yourself, you get no settlement payment but keep the right to sue
over these claims at your own expense. Finally, you can object to
the settlement and tell the judge why you do not want the
settlement to be approved.
You can make a claim at CobraLawsuit.com, as well as get more
detailed information about this case, the settlement, and your
options, as this is a summary only. If you need help and cannot
access the Internet, you can also ask questions by mail by writing
to Cobra Sexual Energy Litigation, c/o Classaura, 1718 Peachtree St
NW #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309 or call 1-888-977-3554. If possible,
please consult the website CobraLawsuit.com.com before calling. Do
not contact Nutraceutical or the Court, except if you are serving
and filing an objection. The deadline to file a claim form is March
6, 2021, but your appointed attorneys recommend that you file a
claim now if you are eligible so you don't forget later, and to
help them plan the cash distribution and estimate the settlement
claims rate.
Your rights and options - and the deadlines to exercise them - are
only summarized in this press release. A Long Form Notice
describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude
yourself, and provides other important information. For more
information and to obtain a Long Form Notice, claim form or other
documents, visit CobraLawsuit.com. [GN]
ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of OrthoPediatrics
Corp. ("OrthoPediatrics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KIDS) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your OrthoPediatrics 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/orthopediatrics-corp/. 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 2, 2020, Culper Research issued a report entitled
"OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Even Channel Stuffing Can't Save
This Company," alleging that the Company "engaged in a channel
stuffing scheme that has systematically and significantly
overstated revenues." Citing interviews with distributors and
former executives, the report alleged that "distributors have been
induced to buy excess product directly from the Company in exchange
for (a) equity-based awards, (b) the opportunity to return product,
and/or (c) product discounts or increased commission schedules."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.12 per share, or
9%, to close at $41.02 per share on December 2, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.
Then, on December 30, 2020, Culper Research tweeted that "a recent
[Freedom of Information Act] request suggests that the Company is
under an active SEC investigation," citing a letter from the SEC
that it withheld certain records pursuant to an exemption that
"protects from disclosure records compiled for law enforcement
purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to
interfere with enforcement activities."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.81, or 6%, to close
at $43.57 per share on December 30, 2020, thereby injuring
investors further.
Then, on December 31, 2020, OrthoPediatrics confirmed reports of an
SEC investigation. The Company stated that it was "responding to a
non-public, fact-finding inquiry" by the SEC, which had been
initiated following Culper Research's report on December 2, 2020.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.32, or 5%, to close
at $41.25 per share on December 31, 2020, thereby injuring
investors further.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
OrthoPediatrics should consider their options to aid the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program.
Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information
may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H.
Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email
shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. [GN]
OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS: Lemus Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUCIO LEMUS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV44110, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on January 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00146 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 required meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of
duties, and unfair and unlawful business practices.
Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. is a company that manufactures
and sells glass containers, headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Candace Bertoldi, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: cbertoldi@seyfarth.com
- and –
Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq.
Nolan Theurer, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: emacgregor@seyfarth.com
ntheurer@seyfarth.com
PHYSICIANS ANSWERING: Sends Unwanted Faxes, Cooperative Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COOPERATIVE MEDICAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, P.A., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. PHYSICIANS ANSWERING
GROUP EXCHANGE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00048-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Jan.
8, 2021) seeks statutory damages resulting from the Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited marketing and advertising facsimiles to people and
businesses who have not given their consent.
According to the complaint, on or about February 18, 2020, the
Defendant sent an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff as part of a
national marketing campaign. Accordingly, the Defendant's
facsimiles are regulated by the TCPA, and Defendants transmission
of it without prior consent or a business relationship is unlawful,
the suit added.
Physicians Answering Group Exchange, Inc. is in the business of
offering and selling telephone answering and paging services
nationwide, that it markets to medical practices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
Michael L. Berler, Esq.
Michael L. Fine, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th Street
Cleveland, OH 44119
Telephone: (216) 502-1055
Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
PICK RESEARCH: Advanced Dermatology Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated v. PICK RESEARCH SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-02829-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 24, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses who have
not given their consent.
According to the complaint, the facsimile purportedly solicited the
Plaintiff's participation in a marketing survey for the purpose of
and in connection with the marketing, production, and advancement
of the sale of Defendant's services.
Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who received an unsolicited
facsimile from Defendant on its office fax machine, which is a
physical machine and not a fax server, without its consent.
Pick Research Solutions, Inc. is a national market research firm,
selling its services through the United States and
internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
Michael L. Berler, Esq.
Michael L. Fine, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th Street
Cleveland, OH 44119
Telephone: (216) 502-1055
Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
PNC BANK: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in Lyons RESPA-TILA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM T. LYONS JR., Plaintiff v. PNC BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02234-SAG (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A.
Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, to Strike Class Action Demand, and to Stay
Litigation.
Plaintiff Lyons filed suit against PNC, alleging violations of the
Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"). At this stage, there appears little
dispute as to the basic facts of the case.
The Plaintiff obtained a Home Equity Line of Credit ("HELOC") from
National City Bank on Feb. 4, 2005. At the closing, the Plaintiff
and National City signed an Equity Reserve Agreement, which did not
contain an arbitration clause or a class action waiver. The HELOC
set a 10-year loan term and allowed the Plaintiff to take draws up
to a maximum amount of $149,650.
Separately, the Plaintiff opened two deposit accounts at PNC: one
on May 3, 2010, ECF 9-1, and one on July 6, 2016. As part of each
transaction, he signed a statement "agreeing to be bound by the
terms and conditions of PNC Bank's Account Agreement for Checking
Accounts and Savings Accounts. The Account Agreement included a
set-off provision authorizing the Defendant to charge the deposit
accounts for any loans, overdrafts, obligations, or other
indebtedness at that time or thereafter owing to it by the
Plaintiff. The Account Agreement also specifies that the Plaintiff
granted PNC a security interest in his deposit accounts.
While the Account Agreement did not, when first agreed to by the
Plaintiff in 2010, include an arbitration clause or class action
waiver, it did include a change-in-terms provision allowing the
Defendant to amend the Agreement from time to time, with such
amendments becoming effective 30 days after notice of the amendment
is posted. In February 2013, it used that change-in-terms
provision to amend the Account Agreement to include an arbitration
clause and class action waiver.
As part of the amendment process, the Defendant posted the 2013
amendments in its branches, highlighted the change on each
customer's monthly statement, and also provided its customers,
including the Plaintiff, the right to opt out of the arbitration
clause. The Plaintiff never did so, despite opportunities in
February 2013, June 2014, November 2015, and November 2017.
On Sept. 26, 2019, PNC used the set-off provision to make a payment
due on the HELOC in the amount of $1,396.97. To make the payment,
PNC debited the Plaintiff's deposit account ending 2553, which he
had opened with PNC on May 3, 2010. On Feb. 26, 2020, PNC used the
set-off provision to apply another payment due on the HELOC, in the
amount of $1,589. To make the payment, PNC debited the Plaintiff's
deposit account ending 6411, which he had opened with PNC on July
6, 2016.
Currently pending is the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration,
to Strike Class Action Demand, and to Stay Litigation. The
Defendant attempts to compel arbitration using the Account
Agreement governing the Plaintiff's two different deposit accounts
with the Bank, which contain 1) a term permitting the Defendant to
garnish deposit accounts to pay off outstanding debts and 2)
arbitration agreements for all matters that "arise out of or relat
to" the Account Agreement. The Plaintiff responds that federal law
prohibits arbitration clauses in the context of mortgage-related
transactions like the HELOC and that, regardless, the specific
arbitration agreements at issue are invalid for lack of
consideration and mutuality.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Judge Gallagher finds that the statutory language to encompass the
arbitration clause in the Account Agreement, where applied to a
claim arising out of a HELOC. The HELOC under which the Plaintiff
is bringing suit is, by any definition, an "extension of credit
under an open end consumer credit plan secured by the principal
dwelling of the consumer." As its name suggests, the HELOC is a
line of credit that the Plaintiff can draw against and that is
secured by his home. Had an arbitration clause been included in
the HELOC, then, there can be no doubt that it would have been
voided by the arbitration ban under Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank"). The HELOC itself does
not contain an arbitration provision, however--instead, the
arbitration clause is located in the separate Account Agreement,
which the Plaintiff agreed to when he opened his deposit accounts
with the Defendant.
As a final attempt to stave off application of Section 1639c(e) to
its arbitration clause, the Defendant suggests that the Account
Agreement does not "relate to" the HELOC because the Agreement does
not mention the HELOC specifically. In its view, the Account
Agreement governs the relationship between a bank and its
depositors separately from the consumer-mortgage relationship
created in the HELOC.
The Judge holds that the Account Agreement contains a term that,
per the Defendant's own apparent interpretation of it, empowers it
to take money from the Plaintiff's account in order to satisfy
outstanding HELOC debt. It is, then, an agreement that has a role
in determining how the mortgage instrument is paid, and therefore
it clearly "relates to" the mortgage. Section 1639c(e)'s ban on
arbitration clauses applies to the arbitration clause in the
Account Agreement, whether via Section 1639c(e)(1), Section
1639c(e)(3), or both.
While the Account Agreement's language falls within the scope of
the Dodd-Frank provisions barring arbitration clauses, the
Defendant points out that one of the two relevant deposit accounts
predates Dodd-Frank's effective date. The Judge agrees. She finds
that since Dodd-Frank's arbitration ban does not apply
retroactively, any claims related to the 2010 deposit account (and
its related 2013 amendment to the Account Agreement adding the
arbitration agreement) remain subject to arbitration. Therefore,
thePlaintiff's TILA claim must be arbitrated, to the extent it
relates to the 2010 deposit account. The TILA claim related to the
2016 deposit account is governed by Dodd-Frank, and must proceed in
the Court.
The Plaintiff raises a handful of additional arguments as to why,
even if the Dodd-Frank statutory bar does not apply, the
arbitration clause itself is invalid. However, the Judge finds
that these arguments lack merit. When the Plaintiff agreed to the
2010 version of the Account Agreement, it contained a
change-in-term provision. Because the Account Agreement was
properly amended to include an arbitration clause in accordance
with Maryland law -- and because the Agreement and the amendment
both predate the effective date of the Dodd-Frank arbitration ban
-- the Plaintiff's TILA claim must be arbitrated to the extent it
relates to the deposit account opened in 2010.
Motion to Strike Class Action Demand
Because the claim related to the 2010 deposit account is subject to
arbitration, the Plaintiff cannot assert a class action as to that
claim. His primary argument to the contrary relies on Section
1639c(e)(3)'s ban on waivers of statutory causes of action, but
even if Dodd-Frank does preclude waiver of his class action right,
it cannot be retroactively applied to the 2013 Account Agreement
and related deposit account, as outlined in Section III(A)(ii). By
failing to opt out, despite notice and multiple opportunities to do
so, he allowed the Defendant to include the arbitration and class
action waiver provisions, which apply to any claim that "arises out
of or relates to" the Account Agreement. The Plaintiff's TILA
claim certainly "relates to" the Agreement, particularly given the
FAA's broad presumption in favor of arbitrability.
Motion to Stay RESPA Claim Pending Arbitration
The Defendant's arguments in favor of staying the RESPA claim are
predicated on its belief that resolution of the claim would be
impacted by the outcome of the TILA claim. Therefore, it posits,
deferring proceedings until the TILA claim is resolved via
arbitration would promote judicial economy and conserve the
parties' resources. However, because the Plaintiff's TILA claim
involving the deposit account opened in 2016 will proceed in the
forum, the Judge finds it would be inefficient to stay the RESPA
claim. The claims will be heard together, and the Motion to Stay
is denied.
For the reasons she set, Judge Gallagher granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, to Strike
Class Action Demand, and to Stay Litigation. Specifically, with
regard to the Plaintiff's Count One TILA claim pertaining to the
HELOC payment taken from the 2010 deposit account, the Motion is
granted--arbitration will be compelled and the class action demand
will be stricken. With regard to the Plaintiff's Count One TILA
claim pertaining to the HELOC payment taken from the 2016 deposit
account, the Motion is denied, and the claim will be permitted to
proceed in the Court, along with its accompanying class action
demand. The Defendants' Motion is denied insofar as it seeks to
stay litigation of Count Two of the Complaint pending resolution of
the arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2x5xkbu from Leagle.com.
PORSCHE AG.: Sciabarrasi Sues Over Emissions Testing Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Sciabarrasi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00190 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants to seek relief with regards to
Porsche's emissions testing misrepresentations and omissions.
The complaint alleges that Porsche manipulated thousands of model
year 2009-2016 911 and Panamera cars (hereafter "Class Vehicles")
to avoid compliance with United States environmental laws and
emissions standards.
Although Porsche continues to conceal the full nature and extent of
its wrongdoing, early reporting indicates that Porsche engaged in a
pattern of multi-faceted deception: First, Porsche made physical
manipulations to the drivetrains of test vehicles -- components
critical to delivering the peak performance that Porsche promises.
The alterations had the effect of modifying the gear ratios on test
vehicles such that they differed materially from the vehicles that
Porsche sold to consumers. The test vehicle's lower gear ratios
delivered a more efficient engine -- with better fuel economy and
emissions performance. Porsche certified these results to
regulators and distributed vehicles that appeared to comply with
applicable environmental laws. In reality, however, consumers
received vehicles with higher gear ratios -- but lower fuel economy
and impermissibly high emissions output, notes the complaint.
Second, Porsche installed defeat device software designed to detect
and respond to emissions testing conditions. When operating in test
mode, the vehicles again appeared to comply with controlling fuel
economy and emissions standards and regulators certified the
vehicles. For consumers operating the Class Vehicles under normal
conditions, the result was again depressed fuel economy and
elevated emissions. Third, Porsche falsely represented to
regulators that its vehicles complied with emissions standards when
operating in all driving modes. In certain vehicles equipped with a
high performing Sport+ mode, however, that was not accurate,
asserts the complaint. In all scenarios, Porsche presented to
regulators a manipulated vehicle that, although appearing to
satisfy fuel efficiency and emissions standards, was not
representative or had the characteristics of the Class Vehicles
that Porsche delivered to consumers, it adds.
The complaint relates that Plaintiff and Class members trusted that
Porsche meant what it said about environmental protection. They
relied on Porsche's representations to regulators about the
performance specifications of Class Vehicles, including fuel
efficiency and emissions compliance. However, the Plaintiff and
Class members did not get what Porsche promised. Had the Plaintiff
and Class members known that Porsche was distributing vehicles that
differed materially from those that regulators certified as legally
compliant, they would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or
would have done so at reduced prices, says the complaint.
As a result, the Plaintiff incurred damages in the form of
overpayment and diminished value.
The Plaintiff purchased a new 2011 Porsche Panamera for $90,000
from Porsche Redwood City in Redwood City, California.
Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North America, Inc. manufactured,
distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Vehicles under the
Porsche brand name throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
Alexander Bukac, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
ajb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
David J. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
Email: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
PORTOFOLIO RECOVERY: Sanders Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Keith Sanders,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00073 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN LAW OFFICES
7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 937-0400
Fax: (866) 288-9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
PRESSLER, FELT: Deutsch Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt &
Warshaw, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Naftela Deutsch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP (formerly known as Pressler &
Pressler, LLP), LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00084-JSR
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Pressler, Felt, & Warshaw LLP -- https://www.paypressler.com/ -- is
a New Jersey based debt collection law firm that operates in
multiple states, including New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nieves Sues Over Misleading Toothpaste Product Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Nieves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 7:21-cv-00186
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2021) is brought pursuant to the New York
General Business Law arising out of the Defendant's false,
deceptive and misleading representation of its Gum & Enamel Repair
toothpaste under the Crest brand, which purports to repair gums and
fight gingivitis, a form of gum disease caused by bacteria.
According to the complaint, the representation of "Gum & Enamel
Repair" is misleading because although the product has indications
for antigingivitis, this only means it can help "control, reduce or
prevent gingivitis, early form of gum disease." The Defendant
misrepresented the product through affirmative statements and
omissions. The Defendant sold more units of the product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of the
misrepresentations and omissions, resulting in additional profits
at the expense of consumers like Plaintiff, the suit alleges.
The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in
1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[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
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Conditional Cert. of Employees Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLENE ROSARIO, and
GEANENE SILAS, On behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign for
Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:20-cv-00352-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. approving conditional certification of a collective action
Under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and approving court-
authorized notice according to the stipulated terms and
procedures:
"all current and former Progressive employees who worked
in the state of Florida while holding the job title of
Medical Rep Assoc and/or Medical Rep Int during the period
from May 11, 2017, to the date of the Order approving the
Parties' stipulation of conditional certification (the
"applicable limitations period"), whose duties included
processing PIP claims, who were classified as exempt from
overtime, and who worked more than 40 hours per week
without receiving overtime compensation; and
2. granting the partial stay of discovery and extension of
the pretrial dates:
Deadline Current Date Proposed Date
Disclosure of Aug. 31, 2021 (Pl.) Feb. 28, 2022 (Pl.)
Expert Reports Sep. 30, 2021 (Def.) Mar. 30, 2022 (Def.)
Discovery Oct. 29, 2021 Apr. 20, 2022
Dispositive and Nov. 30, 2021 May 30, 2022
Daubert Motions
All Other Mar. 2. 2022 Sep. 2, 2022
Motions Including
Motions in limine
Meeting in Mar. 25, 2022 Sep. 26, 2022
person to
prepare joint
pretrial
statement
Trial Status Apr. 12, 2022 Oct. 12, 2022
Conference
Trial Term May 22, 2022 Nov. 1, 2022
Begins
Plaintiff Rosario filed her Complaint on February 28, 2020, and
requested that the case proceed as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of:
"all current and former employees of Progressive who process
and/or processed Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") claims."
The Parties agree that there are other putative class members
located in Florida. All the Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs
work(ed) in the State of Florida for Progressive with the job
titles "Medical Rep Assoc" and "Medical Rep Int." In these
positions, the Plaintiff's and Opt-In Plaintiffs' duties included
processing PIP claims. In addition, all individuals in these
positions were classified as exempt from the FLSA's requirement to
pay overtime compensation, were paid a salary, and were not paid
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Progressive Casualty is an insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of order approving
conditional certification, dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3sf6nltat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 622-6544
Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin W. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Mary Caroline Cravatta, Esq.
Erin M. Sales, Esq.
Gilbert Brosky, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Post Office Box 112
Orlando, FL 32802 0112
Telephone: (407) 649 4000
Facsimile: (407) 841-0168
E-mail: kshaughnessy@bakerlaw.com
mcravatta@bakerlaw.com
esales@bakerlaw.com
gbrosky@bakerlaw.com
QIWI PLC: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Qiwi plc (NASDAQ: QIWI) between
March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=qiwi-plc&id=2527
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=qiwi-plc&id=2527
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the February 9, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that - Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and
record-keeping were ineffective; 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 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.
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]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 8, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or the
"Company") f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: QS)
securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your QuantumScape 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/quantumscape-corporation/. 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 January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
pointing to several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries
that make it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." Specifically, it stated that the battery's power means
it "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving." As solid-state batteries are temperature
sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above
would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees
lower."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action 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 the Company's purported success related to its
solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were
significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be
able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to
power electric vehicles; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired QuantumScape securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March
8, 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]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Leo Sues Over 40.84% Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LEO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION F/K/A KENSINGTON CAPITAL
ACQUISITION CORP., and JAGDEEP SINGH, Case No. 3:21-cv-00150 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 8, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired QuantumScape
securities between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020,
inclusive, seeking to recover damages under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.
QuantumScape develops battery technology for electric vehicles and
other applications. The Company went public via business
combination with Kensington, which closed on November 25, 2020,
with QuantumScape as the surviving public entity.
According to the complaint, 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. The truth emerged when on
January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha pointing
to several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries that
make it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
468 North Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (818) 532-6499
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of QuantumScape Corporation.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
QS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12028&wire=1
QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)
QS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 8, 2020 -
December 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12028&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to
its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density
were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to
be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary
to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Malriat Sues Over 40.84% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MALRIAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION F/K/A KENSINGTON CAPITAL
ACQUISITION CORP., and JAGDEEP SINGH, Case No. 3:21-cv-00058 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 5, 2021) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff
and other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
QuantumScape securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31,
2020, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
QuantumScape, a developer of battery technology for electric
vehicles and other applications, went public via business
combination with Kensington, which closed on November 25, 2020,
with QuantumScape as the surviving public entity. Kensington was a
special purpose acquisition company that was formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination.
According to the complaint, on January 4, 2021, an article was
published on Seeking Alpha pointing to several risks with
QuantumScape's solid-state batteries that make it "completely
unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles." Specifically,
it stated that the battery's power means it "will only last for 260
cycles or about 75,000 miles of aggressive driving." As solid-state
batteries are temperature sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at
30 and 45 degrees above would have been significantly worse if run
even a few degrees lower."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint 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 the Company's purported
success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and
energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company
is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer
cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Quantumscape Corporation, f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition
Corp., is an American company that produces solid state lithium-ion
batteries for electric cars. The company is headquartered in San
Jose, California and employs around 200 people. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
R.N.A. OF ANN: Medrano Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Medrano v. R.N.A. OF ANN ARBOR, INCORPORATED (d/b/a RNA
Janitorial and RNA Facilities Management), 541 JANITORIAL, LLC,
MAHMOUD FARHA and DENA FARHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-13381-SJM-KGA (E.D.
Mich., Dec. 23, 2020) is an action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals under the
collective action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
unpaid overtime premium, wrongful termination, and liquidated
damages.
Ms. Medrano is a Spanish-speaking adult individual residing in
Washtenaw County who was employed by the RNA Defendants from
January 2018 until February 2020 as a commercial janitorial worker.
She consistently worked between 50 to 90 hours per week, but
Defendants failed to pay her an overtime premium for all hours
worked over 40 in a week. In response to the Plaintiff's complaints
of missing pay and her misclassification as an independent
contractor, the Defendants retaliated against Ms. Medrano by firing
her.
RNA provides janitorial services, landscaping services, snow and
ice removal services, and facility maintenance and engineering
services in various states, including Michigan, Illinois, Colorado,
and New Mexico. RNA used 541 Janitorial LLC checks, to pay its
misclassified employees as independent contractors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Diana E. Marin, Esq.
MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
15 S Washington Street, Suite 201
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Telephone: (734) 239-6863
Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
E-mail: dmarin@michiganimmigrant.org
REGAL MARINE: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regal Marine
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Regal Marine
Industries, Inc. doing business as: www.regalboats.com, Case No.
1:21-cv-00108 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Regal -- https://www.regalboats.com/ -- is one of the largest
family-owned-and-operated boat manufacturing companies in the
world, with factories in Orlando, Florida, and Valdosta,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of February 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Restaurant Brands International Inc. ("Restaurant Brands"
or the "Company") (NYSE: QSR) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00148, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant
Brands securities between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Restaurant Brands securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 19, 2021, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Restaurant Brands is one of the world's largest restaurant chains
with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants
in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories as of December 31,
2019.
On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy
designed to improve performance within the Company's Tim Hortons
brand. Specifically, the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on
three key pillars: restaurant experience; product excellence; and
brand communications.
On March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced "Tims Rewards" -- a
new loyalty program for Tim Hortons customers in Canada. Under the
Tims Rewards program, customers would be eligible for a free hot
brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked good after every seventh paid
visit to a participating Tim Hortons restaurant. On April 10, 2019,
Restaurant Brands announced that it was expanding the Tims Rewards
program to include customers in the U.S.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the
implementation and execution of the Company's Winning Together Plan
and Tims Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of the Company
touting the benefits of these initiatives, the Company completed
two stock offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5,
2019, collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3
billion to insiders.
This Complaint 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 and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial,
sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (ii) the Tims
Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue
growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional
discounting; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.
On October 28, 2019, mere weeks after the offerings were completed,
investors learned the truth about Tim Hortons' hyped growth
initiatives when the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Defendants 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, which is causing a little bit of softness in
sales."
On this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common shares declined
$2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per
share on October 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share on October
28, 2019.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Cision View original
content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pomerantz-law-firm-announces-the-filing-of-a-class-action-against-restaurant-brands-international-inc-and-certain-officers--qsr-301203651.html
[GN]
RETROFITNESS LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrofitness, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Retrofitness, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00056 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Retro Fitness -- https://retrofitness.com/ -- is a state of the
art, modern fitness brand, with almost 150 locations in 14
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Sibirtzeff Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Appliance Mfg.
Co. The case is styled as Lisa Sibirtzeff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Royal Appliance Mfg.
Co., Case No. 7:21-cv-00192-VB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Royal Appliance Manufacturing Company -- http://ttifloorcare.com/
-- develops, assembles, and markets a full line of cleaning
products for home and commercial use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11024
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
SANFORD HEISLER: Oks of $7.75-MM Discrimination Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, one of the nation's leading class
action public interest firms today announced that on January 5,
2021, the United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval of a $7.75 million class and
collective action settlement in its case against Western Digital
Corporation and Western Digital Technologies, Inc. on behalf of a
class of 1,863 female employees alleging sex discrimination and
unequal pay.
Under the Settlement, over $5 million will be distributed directly
to class members according to a settlement formula. Class members
should expect to receive their individual checks in the mail in
February 2021.
Western Digital is a computer data storage company and one of the
largest hard disk manufacturers in the world. The case alleged
nationwide discrimination against female employees in pay,
promotions, and placement.
Western Digital will also institute comprehensive programmatic
relief designed to ensure equal opportunities for women at the
company. Western Digital has already initiated several measures and
will undertake others designed to enhance equity, objectivity, and
transparency in pay and promotions. These measures include:
creating a plan to increase the number of women hired and promoted
to leadership; educating employees on non-discrimination policies;
conducting statistical analyses of gender equity in pay and
promotions; and revamping internal complaint procedures. Western
Digital will also appoint an internal compliance monitor, who will
ensure the implementation and compliance with the agreement and
provide reports to the attorneys representing the class.
The Settlement is the culmination of extensive pre-suit analysis of
Western Digital's employment and payroll data, and more than two
years of negotiations. Both parties retained nationally renowned
labor economists to analyze the data and mediated before David
Rotman, Esq., one of the country's most skilled mediators.
Throughout negotiations, parties invested substantial efforts in
working to identify meaningful enhancements to Western Digital's
employment practices, which will be implemented as a result of the
programmatic relief provisions of the settlement.
David Sanford, Chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP and co-lead
counsel for the class, praised the settlement as "an extraordinary
achievement and a testament to the courage and dedication of our
client in stepping forward."
Danielle Fuschetti, of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP also class
counsel, added, "the Settlement also could not have been achieved
without Western Digital's solutions-oriented approach. The company
chose to focus its resources on compensating employees and
promoting fairness and equality, rather than on fighting a long,
expensive battle in court. The result is considerable monetary
relief and a brighter outlook for women at Western Digital."
This case is one in a number of notable challenges advancing gender
equity in the technology sector. Sanford Heisler Sharp, class
counsel in this case, regularly represents individuals and classes
of employees in suits against technology companies. In 2016, they
represented a class of women who secured a settlement of $8.2
Million in a case against Daiichi Sankyo, and in 2017, they
represented a class of female Qualcomm employees in settling class
claims for $23.5 Million.
"Our clients are changing the system and holding institutions to
account," reflected Mr. Sanford. "This settlement is an example of
the extraordinary results employees can achieve when they stand up
and push back."
The class was represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp, Medina Orthwein
LLP and Desai Law Firm PC.
Class members who wish to confirm their mailing information should
contact the Class Administrator, Rust Consulting, at (866) 665-8440
or info@WesternDigitalSettlement.com.
For more information, please email
WDGenderLawsuit@sanfordheisler.com.
About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP is a national public interest
class-action litigation law firm with offices in New York,
Washington, D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, Nashville, and
Baltimore. Sanford Heisler Sharp focuses on employment
discrimination, wage and hour, whistleblower, criminal/sexual
violence, and financial services matters. The firm has recovered
over $1 billion for its clients through many verdicts and
settlements.
For the latest news about Sanford Heisler Sharp, visit the firm's
newsroom or follow the firm on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter.
If you have potential legal claims and are seeking counsel, please
call 646-402-5650 or email david.sanford@sanfordheisler.com.
Attorneys at Sanford Heisler Sharp would like to have the
opportunity to help you.
Media Contact: Jamie Moss, newsPRos, 201 493 1027;
jamie@newspros.com [GN]
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Li Sues Over 4.7% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
BIN LI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ZIXUE
ZHOU, HAIJUN ZHAO, and MONG SONG LIANG, Case No. 2:21-cv-00067
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2021) seeks to recover compensable damages
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting
to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The lawsuit is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SMIC
securities between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020,
inclusive.
According to the complaint, the Company's disclosed financial
statements in the Class period were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to reveal the
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and
financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there was
an "unacceptable risk" that semiconductor equipment supplied to
SMIC would be used for military purposes; (ii) SMIC was foreseeably
at risk of facing U.S. restrictions; (iii) 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 (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
on September 26, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled "U.S.
tightens exports to China's chipmaker SMIC, citing risk of military
use" which announced the following, in pertinent part: The United
States has imposed restrictions on exports to China's biggest chip
maker SMIC after concluding there is an "unacceptable risk"
equipment supplied to it could be used for military purposes.
Suppliers of certain equipment to Semiconductor Manufacturing
International Corporation 0981.HK will now have to apply for
individual export licenses, according to a letter from the Commerce
Department dated Friday and seen by Reuters.
On this news, SMIC's ADR price fell $0.57 per ADR, or 4.7%, to
close at $11.47 per ADR on September 28, 2020, the next trading
day, the suit says.
SMIC purports to be an investment holding company principally
engaged in the computer-aided design, manufacture, testing,
packaging, and trading of integrated circuits, as well as the
provision of other semiconductor services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
SHANG SHANG: Jiao "FLSA" Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUANGLEI JIAO, NAN YU,
RUIJI ZHAI, and YANJUN LI, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. SHANG SHANG QIAN INC. d/b/a Shang
Shang Qian; YUAN YUAN WU a/k/a Andy Wu, ZHAORUI FAN, DAN WU a/k/a
Stephy Wu, and MEILING ZOU a/k/a Denise Zou, Case No.
1:18-cv-05624-DG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or Facebook usernames (if applicable), and work
location, dates of employment and position of:
"ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees employed at any time by SHANG SHANG QIAN INC.
d/b/a Shang Shang Qian from October 09, 2015 to the
present within 21 days of the entry of the order;"
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on the Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker
community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
published in English, and Chinese; and
9. equitably tolling on the statute of limitation on this
suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the
Opt-in Period.
The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.
A copy of the Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Collective Certification dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ibh0kK at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
SIMMONS SPORTING: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Graciano Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. SIMMONS SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00091-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2021) 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 her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the unlawful conduct and seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website,
https://www.simmonssportinggoods.com/, will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Simmons Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American outdoor and sporting
goods company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
SIRIUS XM: Sawyer Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Sawyer and Joseph Roberts, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00176 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2021), is
brought to stop the Defendant's practice of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited, autodialed
telemarketing calls to consumers, including to consumers who
specifically ask that the calls stop, and to otherwise obtain
injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the
conduct of the Defendants.
As part of its business practice, Sirius (either directly or via
its telemarketers acting on its behalf and for its benefit) places
solicitation telemarketing calls to consumers in order to solicit
them to purchase a Sirius subscription. According to the complaint,
these telemarketing calls are placed to the cellular telephones of
consumers without their express written consent and continue after
consumers ask that the calls stop.
In response to these telemarketing calls to cellular telephones
without sufficient consent, the Plaintiffs file this lawsuit
seeking monetary and injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to
cease from violating the TCPA, as well as an award of statutory
damages to the members of the Classes, and costs.
The Plaintiffs are owners and customary users of a cellular
telephone.
Sirius is a well-known broadcasting company that provides satellite
and online radio services to subscribers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.
ARONS & ARONS, LLC
76 South Orange Ave., Suite 100
South Orange, NJ 07079
Phone: (973) 762-0795
Facsimile: (973) 762-0279
Email: ja@aronslaw.net
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Phone: 720.213.0675
Fax: 303.927.0809
Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
SOLARWINDS CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
SolarWinds Corporation (SWI)
Class Period: 2/24/2020 - 12/15/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 5, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-swi/
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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
[GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: RM LAW Reminds Investors of March 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased SolarWinds
Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWI) securities
during the period from February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020
inclusive (the "Class Period").
SolarWinds shareholders may, no later than March 5, 2021 move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of SolarWinds and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds'
Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers
to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2)
SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password; and
(3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including the Federal
Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, were vulnerable to
hacks.
Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Dec. 13, 2020 when
Reuters reported Russian hackers had infiltrated the U.S. Treasury
and Commerce departments' systems by tampering with SolarWinds
updates.
Then, on Dec. 14, 2020 SolarWinds confirmed the vulnerability was
inserted in its Orion monitoring products and existed in updates
released between March and June 2020.
On Dec. 15, 2020, Reuters reported that (1) a security researcher
alerted SolarWinds last year that anyone could access the company's
update server by using the password "solarwinds123," and (2) a
cyber security expert noticed that even days after SolarWinds knew
their software was compromised the malicious updates were still
available for download.
Significantly, shortly before these events unfolded and caused
SolarWinds shares to crater, two investors controlling a majority
of SolarWinds' board of directors sold $285 million of SolarWinds
shares.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 5,
2021 request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order
to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website by clicking here.
RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide. [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Western District of Texas on behalf
of purchasers of SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI) publicly traded
securities between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Bremer v.
SolarWinds Corporation, No. 21-cv-00002, and is assigned to Judge
Robert L. Pitman. The SolarWinds class action lawsuit charges
SolarWinds and certain of its executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased SolarWinds publicly traded securities during
the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
SolarWinds 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 SolarWinds class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
SolarWinds class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the SolarWinds class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the SolarWinds class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
SolarWinds class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com.
Lead plaintiff motions for the SolarWinds class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than March 5, 2021.
SolarWinds purports to provide information technology ("IT")
infrastructure management software products in the United States
and internationally. SolarWinds offers products to monitor and
manage network, system, desktop, application, storage, and database
and website infrastructures, whether on premise, in the public or
private cloud, or in a hybrid IT infrastructure.
The SolarWinds class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds'
Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers
to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2)
SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of
"solarwinds123"; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers,
including, among others, the federal government, Microsoft, Cisco,
and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result,
SolarWinds would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a
result, defendants' statements about SolarWinds' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported that hackers alleged to be
working for the Russian government had monitored email traffic at
the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments and that the alleged
hackers were believed to have gained access to the agencies' email
traffic by deceptively interfering with updates released by
SolarWinds, which services various government vendors in the
executive branch, the military, and the intelligence services.
Then, on December 14, 2020, SolarWinds filed a Form 8-K with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing that it had been
the subject of a hack on its Orion monitoring products. On this
news, the price of SolarWinds' shares fell approximately 17%,
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. [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
class action lawsuit has been filed in the Western District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)
securities between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of SolarWinds Corporation 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 SolarWinds
Corporation, you may, no later than March 5, 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 SolarWinds Corporation.
On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported hackers have been monitoring
email traffic at the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments. The
hackers are believed to have breached the emails by deceptively
interfering with updates released by SolarWinds, which services
various government vendors in the executive branch, the military,
and the intelligence services.
On December 14, 2020, the Company disclosed that "a vulnerability
[was inserted] within its Orion monitoring products which, if
present and activated, could potentially allow an attacker to
compromise the server on which the Orion products run." The
vulnerability was inserted in Orion products downloaded, as well as
updates released, between March and June 2020.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $3.93, or 17%, to
close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020.
Then, on December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that Vinoth Kumar, a
security researcher, alerted the Company last year that anyone
could access SolarWinds’ update server by using the password
"solarwinds123." The article also reported that co-founder of
cybersecurity company Huntress, Kyle Hanslovan, noticed the
malicious updates were still available for download even days after
SolarWinds was aware their software was compromised.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.56, or 8%, to
close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 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 this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
SONA NANOTECH: Faces Powers Suit Over 67% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN POWERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SONA NANOTECH INC., DAVID REGAN, and ROBERT RANDALL,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00169 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2021) is a federal
securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sona
securities between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020, inclusive,
seeking to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.
On July 2, 2020, Sona issued a press release announcing positive
results of its rapid detection COVID-19 antigen test and its
development plan.
According to the complaint, the Defendants released financial
statements that were materially false and/or misleading because
they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse
facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) it was unreasonable
for Sona to represent that it could receive results from field
studies of its COVID-19 antigen test within a month; (ii) Sona's
positive statements about its COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded
as the FDA would deprioritize EUA approval of Sona's antigen test
finding it did not meet "the public health need" criterion; (iii)
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; (iv) 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 (v)
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 October 29, 2020, Sona issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had deprioritized its emergency use authorization review of
the Company's COVID-19 antigen test. On November 25, 2020, the
Company issued a press release announcing that it withdrew its
application of Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for
its COVID-19 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,
damaging investors, the suit says.
Sona Nanotech Inc. provides gold designing and testing services.
The Company produces, researches, and analysis gold nanorods for
diagnostic test products and medical treatment applications. Sona
Nanotech operates in Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
SONA NANOTECH: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors of Sona Nanotech Inc.
(OTCQB:SNANF). Investors who purchased Sona stock or other
securities on a United States stock exchange between July 2, 2020
and November 25, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a
copy of the complaint or to discuss the lead plaintiff process.
Interested investors are encouraged to visit:
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Sona. Investors may email investors@tenlaw.com
or call 617-531-3917. Interested Sona investors have until February
16, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff.
The case alleges that Sona and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and 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 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; and (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. When the public was made aware
of the truth through a series of disclosures, Sona's share price
fell, thereby damaging investors.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Sona
The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing the class action and can select a law
firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested Sona investors have
until February 16, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class
has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors
are not represented by an attorney.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
SOUTHLAND BOX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HERNANDEZ v. SOUTHLAND BOX COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21NWCV00009 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 8, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly-aggrieved employees arising out of the Defendants'
violation of numerous California Labor Code provisions.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the state law
due to their failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay all wages, including minimum wage and
overtime, failure to keep accurate payroll records, failure to
reimburse employees for business-related expenses, and failure to
pay waiting time penalties to the Plaintiff and Class members.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Southland Box from approximately
April 28, 2008, to December 2019.
Southland Box Company owns a restaurant located in Vernon,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
- and -
Justin Lo, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (424) 355-8335
E-mail: justin@worklawyers.com
SPLUNK INC: Faces Guirguis Suit Over 23% Decline in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GUIRGUIS, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated investors v. SPLUNK INC., DOUGLAS S. MERRITT, and JASON E.
CHILD, Case No. 4:21-cv-00164 (N.D. Cal., Jan.8, 2021) is a
securities fraud class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
purchasers of Splunk common stock between August 26, 2020, and
December 2, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover damages under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to
the investing public and/or failing to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants concealed material information and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) Splunk was facing pushback from
clients across its largest and most important accounts as it
attempted to implement a new pricing model and secure customer
renewals; (b) Splunk had failed to close several deals with its
largest customers; (c) Splunk had fallen far behind previously
announced financial targets; and (d) consequently, defendants
lacked a reasonable factual basis to make the statements they made
regarding Splunk's results and operational performance.
On December 2, 2020, after the market closed, Splunk was forced to
disclose a severe revenue shortfall and disappointing financial
results. On this news, the price of Splunk common stock declined
more than 23%, the suit says.
Based in San Francisco, California, Splunk Inc. develops and
markets software solutions that enable organizations to gather,
organize, and analyze their enterprise data.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
Brett M. Middleton, 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
BrettM@johnsonfistel.com
SPLUNK INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind 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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-splk/
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
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN]
SPRINGS WINDOW: Poland Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE POLAND,
Individually, and on behalf herself and others similarly situated,
v. SPRINGS WINDOW FASHIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02489-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. authorizing her claims to proceed as a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for overtime
violations, on behalf of:
"all current and former persons who were employed by
Springs Window Fashions, LLC and classified as Field Sales
Representatives ("FSRs") and Territory Sales Managers
("TSMs")in the United States at any time during the
applicable statutory period covered by this Collective
Action Complaint (i.e., two years for FLSA violations, and
three years for willful FLSA violations)";
2. directing the Defendant to immediately provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable file containing
the names (last names first), last known physical
addresses, last known email addresses, social security
numbers, dates of employment and last known telephone
numbers of all putative class members;
3. providing that the Court-approved notice be enclosed with
all of the Defendant's currently employed putative class
members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be
mailed and emailed to the putative class members so that
they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of
this litigation;
4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
as of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and
5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join
Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
This is a case about unpaid overtime. Ms. Poland brings this case
as a collective action under the FLSA. The Defendant Springs Window
makes and markets window treatment products under brands such as
Bali, Graber, SunSetter and Mecho.
Ms. Poland, the Opt-in Plaintiffs, and the putative class were/are
employed by the Defendant as FSRs and TSMs. The Defendant employs
FSRs and TSMs to train retail store associates and/or interior
decorators/designers on Springs Window Fashions products. The
Plaintiffs allege that they and other FSRs and TSMs were not paid
the applicable FLSA overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of
40 per work week.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39t6ssW
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff Poland is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq
B. Alan Matthews, 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
nbishop@jsyc.com
amatthews@jsyc.com
SQUARETRADE: Starke Seeks Class Certification, Initial Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM J. STARKE,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SQUARETRADE, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-07036-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court to enter an order granting his
preliminary injunction and class certification.
As a result of the recent Swinton Settlement in Iowa, there is an
identifiable Class of approximately 3,600 customers who exercised
their rights to opt out and not release their claims related to the
purported arbitration provision (the Exclusion Members). The
Plaintiff Starke now renews his prior motion for a preliminary
injunction and class certification on behalf of the Exclusion
Members because Defendant SquareTrade, Inc. continues to try to
avoid the Second Circuit's ruling that its arbitration provision is
unenforceable, says the complaint.
-- Starke Still Has Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief:
The Defendant has argued that Starke does not have
standing to seek an injunction to prevent the
enforcement of the arbitration provisions now that
Defendant cannot compel him to arbitrate. However, as
the Second Circuit has held, a plaintiff must show that
he has standing to redress the harm "by alleging that
the defendant was engaging in the unlawful practice
against the plaintiff at the time of the complaint."
Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 938 (2d Cir. 1993). In
that case, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant
exceeded the time allowed to determine their eligibility
for food stamps. After the case was filed, they each
belatedly received their food stamps but the Second
Circuit ruled they had standing to go forward with their
case nonetheless. The Plaintiff Starke clearly had
standing to seek an injunction at the time that he filed
this suit, and the only reason why he may have lost
standing is as a result of his successful litigation of
the case. In turn, the Plaintiff Starke's standing to
bring the claim originally is sufficient to establish
standing for the absent class members.
-- Class Certification Remains Appropriate:
The Plaintiff contends that class certification is
uniquely appropriate in this case where the Defendant
has not only agreed to class certification pursuant to a
settlement agreement, but actively advocated for the
certification of the class in the copy-cat Swinton
action. A Class consisting of the Exclusion Members is
easily identifiable because they have specifically
contacted the Defendant and their contact information
should be available. His proposed Class also complies
with the Rule 23(b)(2) requirements articulated in Berni
v. Barilla S.P.A., 964 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2020). In that
case, the Second Circuit explained that the injunctive
relief sought has to address a threat of future injury
that is likely to affect each member of the proposed
class in order to satisfy Article III. Id. At 147.
Specifically, past purchasers of an underfilled box of
pasta did not receive any relief in a settlement where
future purchasers of pasta would see a visible fill line
on the packaging, particularly since it was unclear how
they would be deceived even if they purchased the pasta
again. Id. Here, he is attempting to enjoin the
Defendant from asserting an arbitration provision
against each of the individuals who are in the proposed
Class.
-- Swinton litigation
The Plaintiff assumes that the Court is familiar with
the background of the litigation as through the filing
of the Original Motion. Since that time, Judge Rose in
the Southern District of Iowa approved the settlement of
the copy-cat litigation. Swinton v. SquareTrade, Inc.,
No. 18-cv-144 (S.D. Iowa April 14, 2020). The appeal to
the Eighth Circuit was withdrawn on June 18, 2020. The
Swinton Settlement is therefore final.
The Swinton Settlement did not resolve all of the issues
in this matter. Importantly, more than 3,600 individuals
-- 221 of which provided New York addresses, including
Plaintiff Starke -- excluded themselves from the Swinton
Settlement.
SquareTrade is an American extended warranty service provider for
consumer electronics and appliances headquartered in San
Francisco's SoMa district.
A copy of the notice of motion of plaintiff's renewed motion for
preliminary injunction and class certification dated Jan. 8, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39mZXIh at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:
Solomon N. Klein, Esq.
Bradley J. Nash, Esq.
SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
26 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 344-5400
- and -
Mark Schlachet, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
3515 Severn Road
Cleveland, OH 44118
Telephone: (216) 225-7559
- and -
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Adam J. Blander, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Oncologist Allegedly Harming Patients Removed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Masson at beckershospitalreview.com reports that Helena,
Mont.-based St. Peter's Health removed longtime oncologist Tom
Weiner, MD, after learning that the physician had been harming
patients for years, CEO Wade Johnson wrote in a letter to the
Independent Record.
The health system said Dr. Weiner caused harm via clinically
unnecessary treatments, failure to meet narcotic prescription laws,
failure to refer patients to other specialists for appropriate
treatments, and failure to meet clinical documentation
requirements, according to Mr. Johnson's letter.
"After extensive review of these concerns and consultation with
medical and legal experts, we expect authorities will investigate
these concerns and we will cooperate fully," Mr. Johnson wrote. "We
understand many people have been frustrated by the lack of
information about Dr. Weiner's departure. Please know that he was
swiftly and decisively removed from patient care as soon as there
was proof that patients were harmed."
Dr. Weiner declined to comment on the allegations, reports the
Independent Record. The oncologist, who worked for St. Peter's for
nearly 25 years, said he plans to sue the hospital.
A class-action lawsuit was filed Nov. 13 against St. Peter's
Health, alleging that the hospital failed to fulfill its duty to
its patients as a result of Dr. Weiner's dismissal. Hospital
officials filed a motion Dec. 8 to dismiss the class-action
lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weiner's patients weren't consulted
before his unexplained absence in late October, resulting in gaps
in care. Mr. Johnson said the hospital will respond to that
class-action suit "sometime in the next 10 days." [GN]
STANTEC INC: Court Junks Case Due to Annapolis' Voluntary Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNAPOLIS CITIZENS CLASS
OVERCHARGED FOR WATER-SEWER, BY LOUDON OPERATIONS, LLC, v. STANTEC,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02603-BAH (D.C.C.), the Hon. Judge
Beryl A. Howell entered an order:
1. dismissing the case, without prejudice, in light of the
plaintiffs notice of voluntary dismissal;
2. denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
motions to strike;
3. denying the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions; and
4. denying the Defendants' motion for sanctions based on the
plaintiff's proposed order attached to the complaint; and
5. sanctioning the Plaintiff's counsel John F. Lillard, III,
pursuant to Rules 11(c)(1) and 26(g)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for his improper filing of a
motion for sanctions without legal authority and for his
improper serving of a pre-discovery subpoena compelling
attendance at a deposition, which he failed to withdraw
despite notice of its impropriety;
-- Lillard is admonished for these violations and directed
to pay costs and attorney's fees associated with the
defendants' motion to quash; and
-- The Defendants shall submit an itemized billing
statement of fees and expenses associated with the
motion to quash by January 15, 2021, and Lillard shall
submit by January 29, 2021, notice of whether those
fees and expenses have been paid or are contested in
any way.
Stantec is an international professional services company in the
design and consulting industry.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and opinion dated Jan. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35zXmts at no
extra charge.[CC]
STEMGENEX: Initial Approval of Partial Class Settlement Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELENA MOORER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
STEMGENEX MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; STEMGENEX,
INC., a California corporation; STEM CELL RESEARCH CENTRE, INC., a
California Corporation; ANDRE P. LALLANDE, D.O., an Individual;
SCOTT SESSIONS, M.D., an Individual; RITA ALEXANDER, an Individual;
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:16-cv-02816-AJB-AHG (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of partial settlement in its entirety;
2. appointing A.B. Data, Ltd. as the settlement administrator
and approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Class notice;
3. scheduling that the 30-day notice period to begin within
21 days of the entry of this preliminary approval order,
in which any comments/objections can be filed by Class
Members; and
4. setting a final approval briefing schedule to begin within
21 days of the end of the 30-day notice period, with a
hearing on fairness and final approval of the 6 settlement
to be held on April 29, 2021 at 2:00 PM.
The Court said, "Presently before the Court is Selena Moorer,
Rebecca King, Jennifer Brewer, and Alexandra Gardner, including
Subclass A Representatives Jennifer Brewer and Alexandra Gardner,
and Subclass B Representatives Andrea Andrews and Jennifer
Delaney's (the Plaintiffs) motion for orders: (1) granting
preliminary approval of a partial settlement between the Class
Members and Defendant Andre P. Lallande, D.O. 27 pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(e), and (2) finding the settlement between the Class
Members and Lallande a "good faith settlement," within the meaning
of Sections 877 and 877.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure. The motion is unopposed. Having reviewed the parties'
moving papers under controlling legal authority, and pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for
disposition on the papers and without oral argument. The Court
grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion in its entirety."
On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against the multiple Defendants in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, alleging violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising
Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's
Health and Safety Code.
On September 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, to include a claim for damages under the CLRA. The FAC
contained similar factual allegations, but added the Plaintiff
Stephen Ginsberg to the action and alleged an additional claim for
Financial Elder Abuse. On November 16, 2016, the Defendants removed
the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a) and
(b).
The operative complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
nationwide scheme to "wrongfully market and sell 'stem cell
treatments'" to consumers who are often "sick or disabled,
suffering from incurable diseases and a dearth of hope."
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants advertised
their "stem cell treatments" to consumers via their website and
made misrepresentations that the treatments "effectively treat a
multitude of diseases," when in actuality, Defendants maintained
"no reasonable basis" to make these claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XBQV4M at no extra charge.[CC]
STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Rochman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Aharon Rochman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C., Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00099-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Stephen Einstein & Associates P.C. --
http://www.stepheneinstein.com/-- is a law practice company based
out of United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Pet Parade TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PET PARADE, INC., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. STOKES
HEALTHCARE, INC., a foreign company, doing business as EPICUR
PHARMA, Case No. 1:20-cv-24279-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
1. cconditionally certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(3):
"all persons in the United States who (1) on or after four
years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent an
unsolicited telephone facsimile message advertising the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods,
or services by or on behalf of the Defendant that did not
display an opt-out notice on the first page stating that
the recipient may make a request to the sender of the
advertisement not to send any future advertisements to a
telephone facsimile machine or machines and that failure
to comply, within 30 days, with such a request meeting the
requirements under 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(a)(4)(v) is
unlawful;" and
2. directing the Defendant to provide notice to the putative
class regarding the pendency of this action.
This class action seeks to redress business practices that violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) and the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (JFPA). The Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief, resulting from the unlawful actions of the
Defendant in negligently and/or willfully sending unsolicited
facsimile advertisements.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Lozp1o
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: 954-889-3359
Facsimile: 954-889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Holly M. Hamilton, Esq.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY
WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
2400 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 1100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
Telephone: (954) 847-4920
Facsimile: (954) 627-6640
E-mail: HXHamilton@MDWCG.com,
DMVugrinovich@MDWCG.com and
SLThompson@MDWCG.com
SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Mooney Balks at Proposed Merger w/ Viracta
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MOONEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SOL MERGER SUB, INC.,
VIRACTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., DAYTON MISFELDT, STEVE R. CARCHEDI,
STEVEN B. KETCHUM, NICOLE ONETTO, HOME L. PEARCE, DAVID C. STUMP,
H. WARD WOLFF, and JAMES W. YOUNG, Case No. 3:21-cv-00182 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 8, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and breaches of fiduciary duty
as a result of their efforts to sell the Company to Viracta in an
unfair process for an unfair price. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
a proposed all stock reverse merger transaction valued at
approximately $43.9 million.
The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in a
November 30, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan
of merger. Under the terms of the agreement, on the closing of the
merger, Sunesis stockholders, including the Plaintiff, will own
only approximately 14% of the combined company on a fully diluted
basis using the treasury stock method. On December 22, 2020,
Sunesis filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in
support of the proposed transaction.
The complaint asserts that the Individual Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and
disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Sunesis without
first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members would
obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the
circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Viracta without regard for Sunesis public
stockholders. The Defendants allegedly caused to be filed the
materially deficient Registration Statement on December 22 in an
effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Sunesis shares in
favor of the proposed transaction.
Absent judicial intervention, the proposed transaction will be
consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the
Class, the suit says.
Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization
of small molecule therapeutics for oncology, inflammatory diseases
and other unmet medical needs. The company is advancing two
proprietary oncology product candidates intended for the treatment
of cancer.
Viracta Therapeutics, Inc. provides pharmaceutical products. The
Company offers medicines to benefit patients with viral associated
cancers and other serious diseases. Viracta Therapeutics serves
customers in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 534-2590
Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
rcardona@brodskysmith.com
TAKL INC: Smith Suit Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Smith, Victoria Rockwell, Woodston Maddox, individually and
as class representatives v. TAKL, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00004
(M.D. Tenn., Jan. 5, 2021) arises from the Defendant's conduct of
terminating Plaintiffs' employment without cause as the reasonably
foreseeable consequence of COVID-19 pandemic, in violation of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not give the
Plaintiffs or any of the WARN Act Class members the statutorily
required 60 days' notice of the mass layoff or termination in
violation of the law.
Until on or about the mass layoff termination date beginning about
September 18, 2019 and ending on March 18, 2020, the Plaintiff and
all similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant and
worked at or reported to the Defendant either on site or remotely.
TAKL, Inc. is an online re-sourcer which provided customers with
access to "gig" economy workers who would provide a variety of
services from delivery, pick up and haul-away, errands, light
maintenance, and general household services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Heather Moore Collins, Esq.
Anne Hunter, Esq.
Ashley Walter, Esq.
COLLINS & HUNTER, PLLC
7000 Executive Center Dr., Suite 320
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 724-1996
Facsimile: (615) 691-7019
E-mail: heather@collinshunter.com
anne@collinshunter.com
ashley@collinshunter.com
TERM COMMODITIES: Class Action Status Sought in Cotton Futures Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action RE: TERM COMMODITIES COTTON FUTURES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:12-cv-05126-ALC-KNF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court to enter an order certifying this action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
on behalf of:
"all persons, corporations and other legal entities that (a)
purchased between March 30 and May 6, 2011 a May 2011
Contract in order to liquidate a short position in such
contract, including short positions held as part of spread
positions; or (b) contracted to purchase cotton on call based
on the May 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this
contract between March 30 and May 6; or (c) purchased between
June 7 and July 7, 2011, a July 2011 Contract in order to
liquidate a short position therein, including short positions
held as part of spread positions; or (d) contracted to
purchase cotton on call based on the July 2011 Contract
price, and set the price on this contract between June 7 and
July 7, 2011;"
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, any parent,
subsidiary, affiliate, agent or employee of any Defendant,
and any co-conspirator.
This case involves what the financial press has called the "largest
ever cotton squeeze" and the "worst thing that ever happened" to
the cotton market. The Plaintiffs contend and allege that the
Defendants had the motivation, knowledge, ability, and intent to
manipulate and did manipulate the prices of the May 2011
Intercontinental Exchange ("ICE") cotton futures contract and July
2011 ICE cotton futures contract.
The Plaintiffs and all Class members traded in the same
standardized cotton futures contracts, in the same unitary trading
pit/market maintained by the ICE during the Class Period. The Class
Period is defined as March 30 through May 6, 2011 and June 7
through July 7, 2011.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion to certify class dated
Jan. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2XzuvRH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Interim Class Counsel are:
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Christopher M. McGrath, Esq.
Travis H. Carter, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
TERRA TECH: Stanley Sues Over Unsolicited, Autodialed Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Madelene Stanley and Katherine Kelsch, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TERRA TECH CORP. and MEDIFARM
LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00022 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2021), is brought
for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendants in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or
MMS text messages, en masse, to the Plaintiffs' cellular device and
the cellular devices of numerous other individuals nationwide, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To promote its services, the Defendants engage in aggressive
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
to halt the Defendants' illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiffs also seek
statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Stanley is a natural person who is a resident of Gardena,
California. Plaintiff Kelsch is a natural person who is a resident
of Houston, Texas.
The Defendants operate in the cannabis industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
TEXAS EDUCATION: Court Tosses Alvarez's Motion to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO ALVAREZ, parent of
J.A., a minor child, v. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, Case No.
1:19-cv-00921-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered
an order:
1. adopting the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower;
2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; and
3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Orders.
The Court said, "A party may serve and file specific, written
objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations
within 14 days after being served with a copy of the report and
recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the
district court. Because the Plaintiff timely objected to each
portion of the report and recommendation, the Court reviews the
report and recommendation de novo. Having done so, the Court
overrules the Plaintiff's objections and adopts the report and
recommendation as its own order."
The Texas Education Agency is the branch of the government of Texas
responsible for public education in Texas in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3snkHbuat no extra charge.[CC]
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION: Wortham Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Toussaint Wortham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TOTAL TRANSPORTATION CORP., BROOKLYN JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION CORP., BELLA BUS CORP., QUALITY
TRANSPORTATION CORP., L & M BUS CORP., MAGGIES PARATRANSIT CORP.,
GVC II INC., MAT BUS CORP., 21ST AVE BUS CORP., AGOSTINO VONA, and
JOHN CRONIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00085 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2021), is
brought to recover unpaid regular, overtime, and spread-of-hours
wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, interest, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week for
the Defendant, but were not compensated properly for all of the
hours they worked, or for their overtime hours, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bus driver.
The Defendants own and operate a bus transport conglomerate. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee , Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 465-1180
TRANS EXPRESS: Pulliam Suit Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHALL PULLIAM, PARSHOO
BADLU, and SEAN ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. TRANS EXPRESS, INC.; NATIONAL EXPRESS LLC;
and NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-04038-SJ-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
to enter an order:
1. preliminary approving the settlement reached by the
parties in this action as embodied in their Settlement
Agreement:
--The proposed settlement provides for a Gross Settlement
Amount of up to $607,500, will result in the termination
of this litigation and will resolve the Plaintiffs'
claims in the lawsuit, which allege that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL) by misclassifying Bus Drivers and
Dispatchers as exempt from overtime and thus not paying
proper overtime wages, minimum wage overtime rates,
spread of hours pay, as well as other statutory NYLL
violations;
2. provisionally certifying the following settlement class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in connection
with the settlement process:
"all present and former persons employed as Bus Drivers
and/or Dispatchers by the Defendants at any time between
July 12, 2013 and either preliminary approval of this
Settlement or 30 days from the signing of the Settlement
Agreement, whichever comes first;"
3. approving the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement
to be sent to the Class Members;
4. appointing The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC as
Class Counsel; and
5. appointing RG/2 Claims Administration as the Settlement
Administrator.
On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this class and collective
action lawsuit on behalf of current and former Bus Drivers and
Dispatchers, asserting claims against the Defendants for unpaid
straight and/or overtime compensation under the FLSA and the NYLL.
The Plaintiffs also alleged that the Defendants violated the NYLL
by failing to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements.
TransExpress is an international transportation and logistics
company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion for unopposed
preliminary approval of class settlement dated Jan. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nEGcAU at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys' for the Plaintiffs' and Putative Class, are:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF
CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PPLC
80 Broad St, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 430-7930
TREK BICYCLE: Glancey Sues Over Mislabeled Bicycle Helmets
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GLANCEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 7:21-cv-00120 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant's sale and manufacture of bicycle helmet products.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels,
markets and promotes bicycle helmets under the Bontrager WaveCel
brand ("Product") which purport to reduce the incidence and/or
prevent the occurrence of concussions, relative to other similar
bicycle helmets, sold to consumers from stores and websites,
operated by third-parties and defendant.
As part of their effort to capture the largest share of the helmet
market, the Defendant conducted what would appear to be a
scientific test regarding the purported concussion protective
benefits of the Product. The Defendant marketed the Product as
capable of reducing the incidence of concussion when compared to
other bicycle helmets available for sale from other manufacturers
that cost significantly less, the suit says.
The Defendant's promise is allegedly false or deceptive because
their Helmets do not provide the promised reduced incidence of
concussions. In fact, objective and reliable research shows that
claims of concussion reduction related to bicycle helmets are not
valid and are instead simply a marketing tool.
Trek Bicycle Corporation provides bikes and apparel products. The
Company offers helmets, shoes, lights, and jerseys products. [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
TRICIDA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Tricida, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TCDA) securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March 8, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
Tricida is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development
and commercialization of its drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), a
non-absorbed, orally administered polymer designed as a potential
treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with CKD. Tricida has
completed a Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of
veverimer in patients with CKD and metabolic acidosis.
On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program for approval of
veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis in patients with
CKD.
On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing that,
on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the FDA,
stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's
NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that
preclude discussion of labeling and post marketing
requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he
notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the
FDA."
On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share, or
40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.
Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility."
On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or
47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.
The complaint, filed on January 6, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Tricida's NDA for
veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was
foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for
veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased Tricida securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
TRITERRAS INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW) between August 20, 2020 and
December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=triterras-inc&id=2539
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=triterras-inc&id=2539
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the February 19, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that - 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; that Rhodium
faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its
ability to continue as a going concern; that, as a result, Rhodium
was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform;
and 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.
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]
TUMINO'S TOWING: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Kiley Towing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Tumino's Towing, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SEAN KILEY, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. TUMINO'S
TOWING, INC., et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-03165, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge
John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand.
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in New Jersey state
court to recover damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants'
allegedly unlawful and predatory towing practices. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants towed his car at the request of
Ridgefield Park law enforcement due to a parking violation, without
his consent. The Defendants took the Plaintiff's car to a Tumino's
Towing storage facility. When the Plaintiff went to retrieve his
car, Tumino's Towing provided him with an invoice for charges
related to the towing. The Plaintiff paid the full amount on the
invoice. He alleges that certain of the fees and charges he paid
violate multiple New Jersey consumer protection laws and
regulations.
The Defendants seek a review of Judge Vazquez's order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to remand based on a Class Action Fairness Act
jurisdictional exception.
The appellate case is captioned as Sean Kiley v. Tumino's Towing,
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-8001, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Jan. 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent SEAN KILEY, on belaf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
DISABATO & CONSIDINE
196 Santiago Avenue
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 762-5088
E-mail: lconsidine@disabatolaw.com
- and -
Mark A. Fisher, Esq.
SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER
101 Grovers Mill Road
Quakerbridge Executive Center, Suite 200
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
Telephone: (609) 275-0400
E-mail: mfisher@wolflawfirm.net
- and -
Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq.
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (732) 545-7900
E-mail: moorbeek@genovaburns.com
awolf@wolflawfirm.net
Defendants-Petitioners TUMINOS TOWING and JOHN TUMINO are
represented by:
Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
Caroline E. Oks, Esq.
GIBBONS, PC
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 596-4827
E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
coks@gibbonslaw.com
TURBOTENANT: Sandofsky Files FCRA Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TURBOTENANT. The case
is styled as Matthew Sandofsky, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. TURBOTENANT, a corporation, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00395-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Jan. 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
TurboTenant -- https://www.turbotenant.com/ -- offers free landlord
software for advertising rental properties, online applications,
screening tenants, collecting rent online and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Matthew Sandofsky
90 CANAL STREET
Boston, MA 02114
Pro Se
U.S. BANK: Maag Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Maag, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. U.S. Bank National
Association, wholly-owned subsidiary of US Bancorp; U.S. Bancorp;
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 37-02020-00040898-CU-MC-CTL, was
removed from the San Diego Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00031-H-LL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
US Bank NA -- https://www.usbank.com/ -- operates as a bank. The
Company offers products and services such as internet and mobile
banking, internet bill pay, credi cards, options for paying bills,
online statements, saving account, mortgages, and home loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI PC
456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 983-0900
Fax: (415) 397-9005
Email: matt@righettilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander Akerman, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-1000
Fax: (213) 576-1100
Email: alex.akerman@alston.com
URBAN ALCHEMY: Neutall Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS NEUTALL, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. URBAN ALCHEMY, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588622 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 23, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide
required meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage
statements, reimburse employees for required expenses, and provide
wages when due to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated in
violations of the California Labor Code and the Business and
Professions Code.
Mr. Neutall was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from May 2020 to July 2020.
Urban Alchemy, a California corporation, operates various
non-profit programs assisting urban communities in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
- and -
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
WAL-MART STORE: Court Denies Bid for Show Cause Order in Brown Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NISHA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART STORE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:09-cv-03339-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied without prejudice
Barbara Waters, Samantha Fernandez, Destiney Lopez, and April
Swoboda's motion for an Order to Show Cause and for discovery.
The class action settled in early 2019. One of the provisions of
the settlement requires Walmart to implement a Seating Program. An
Order and Final Judgment Approving Settlement was issued on March
28, 2019.
On Aug. 11, 2020, Movants Waters, Fernandez, Lopez, and Swoboda
filed their motion for an Order to Show Cause why Defendant Walmart
should not be sanctioned for allegedly violating the Judgment by
failing to provide seats to front-end cashiers. They request that
the Court orders Walmart to respond promptly to "limited discovery
regarding its apparent noncompliance" and to show cause why
monetary sanctions should not be imposed. The Motion is scheduled
for hearing Jan. 21, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
The Movants are not class representatives, nor are they represented
by the Class Counsel. Nevertheless, they represent that they are
members of the class or intended third party beneficiaries under
the settlement, and accordingly have standing to seek relief for
the alleged violation.
Walmart filed an opposition on Aug. 25, 2020. The Movants filed a
reply on Sept. 1, 2020. Walmart next filed an administrative
motion for leave to file a sur-reply and objections to the reply to
address new evidence and arguments in the Movants' reply, and the
Movants filed an opposition to the administrative motion. The
Court agrees with Walmart that the reply presents new evidence and
argument, and therefore grants Walmart's administrative motion.
On Jan. 5, 2021, the Movants filed an administrative motion to
submit supplemental evidence. That motion is denied as untimely.
The Movants raise several objections to the declarations of Melinn
Mitchell: lack of foundation; best evidence; hearsay; improper
legal conclusion; and speculation. Judge Davila overruled these
objections. Among other things, he finds that Mitchell is Project
Manager III, U.S. Ethics & Compliance for Walmart. In that
capacity, since 2018, she has responsibility for development and/or
revision of compliance programs and training content in
collaboration with business partners. She represents that the
facts set forth in her declarations are based on her personal
knowledge or on information gathered, with the assistance of other
employees, from records created and maintained in the ordinary
course of business.
The Movant also objects to portions of the declaration of Naomi
Beer on several grounds: improper legal conclusions; lack of
personal knowledge and foundation; hearsay; best evidence; and
speculative. The Judge holds that the Movants' objections are
deemed moot because he finds it unnecessary to consider the
allegedly objectionable portions of Beer's declaration in ruling on
the Movants' motion.
Walmart raises several objections to the information gathered by
the Movants' investigator, Mark Woodward, as well as the
declarations of the Movants' counsel, Kevin McInerney and exhibits
thereto: lack of relevance; lack of personal knowledge and
foundation; improper legal conclusion; and hearsay. The Judge
overruled the hearsay objection based on the exception recognized
in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1). The remaining objections are
overruled because they go to the weight, and not to the
admissibility, of the evidence.
Walmart also objects to portions of the declarations of Samantha
Fernandez, Destiny Lopez, April Swoboda, Norma Izaguirre, and
Eduardo Romero as lacking foundation, not based on personal
knowledge and irrelevant. The Judge also overruled the objections
to these three declarations because they go to the weight, and not
to the admissibility, of the evidence. The hearsay objection to
Swoboda's recollections regarding pregnant employees is sustained:
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) and 807(1) and (1) are
inapplicable.
Turning to the merits, the Judge finds that the Movants have not
presented sufficient evidence, much less clear and convincing
evidence, to warrant the issuance of an order to show cause for
purported violations of the Settlement Agreement. The Movants
assert two fundamental violations of the Settlement. First, they
contend that the Settlement Agreement has been violated because
seating is tied to positions (i.e., front-end cashier) rather than
location (i.e. front-end check stand) without regard to position.
The Judge disagrees, concluding that although the Settlement
Agreement does not include a definition of front-end cashier, the
term means a person employed "in the position of front-end
cashier," which is consistent with the Class definition. The
Settlement Agreement does not require Walmart to provide seats to
persons employed in other positions with different titles who are
called upon to fill in at the cashier.
Second, the Movants contend that the Settlement Agreement has been
violated because covered employees are required to "request" a
seat. The Judge rejects the argument, stating that the Settlement
Agreement clearly contemplates front-end cashiers requesting a
seat. Requiring them to do so is not a violation of the
Settlement. The Movants' assertion to the contrary is baseless
Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila denied without prejudice the
motion for an order to show cause and for discovery. In the event
the Movants' counsel uncovers new evidence of a concrete violation
of the Settlement, the Movants' counsel will immediately provide
all such evidence to the Class Counsel and Walmart, after which all
parties will meet and confer in good faith to resolve the alleged
violation without court intervention. If after meeting and
conferring in good faith, the alleged violation cannot be resolved
without court intervention, the parties and/or the Movant may seek
court assistance.
Although the Judge declines to grant the Movants' requested relief,
he finds good cause to order Walmart to provide the Class Counsel
and the Court with an inventory of the number of stools available
for front-end cashier use at each of their California stores and to
specify for each store where available stools are located. Walmart
will provide the information to the Class Counsel no later than
Jan. 31, 2021.
Further, no later than Jan. 31, 2021, Walmart will submit to the
Court for in camera review the notice that was provided through the
training module.
Further, the Judge will authorize the deposition of April Swoboda.
Any party may notice the deposition of Ms. Swoboda, which will be
conducted via Zoom or other similar technology, and concluded no
later than Feb. 26, 2021. Walmart's questioning of the witness
will not exceed four hours.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4dgqk9c from Leagle.com.
WALGREEN CO: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Under Seal Documents
----------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY FORTH, LISA BULLARD, RICARDO GONZALES, CYNTHIA RUSSO,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 38 HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL
295-295C WELFARE FUND, AND STEAMFITTERS FUND LOCAL 439,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case: 4:21-mc-00014-SRC
(E.D. Mo., Jan. 7, 2021) seeks to move for an order allowing the
Plaintiffs to file under seal documents filed in support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Leehar Distributors Missouri, LLC
d/b/a CastiaRx ("CastiaRx") to Provide an Adequately Prepared
Witness for a Limited, Two-Hour Supplemental Deposition.
According to the motion, on October 17, 2017, the Court in Forth v.
Walgreen Co., No. 17-cv-2246 (N.D. Ill.) (the "Underlying Action")
entered an Agreed Confidentiality Order (the "Confidentiality
Order") governing the production of materials produced in the
course of discovery in the Underlying Action.
The Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law filed in support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel contains quotations from and
descriptions of deposition testimony provided by CastiaRx that
Defendant Walgreen Co. ("Walgreens") has designated as
"Confidential" pursuant to Section 4 of the Confidentiality Order,
and/or that describes documents designated as "Confidential" or
"Attorneys Eyes Only" pursuant to Sections 3(a) and (b) of the
Confidentiality Order. Further, the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law
also contains quotations from and descriptions of documents that
Walgreens and CastiaRx have designated as "Confidential" and
"Attorneys Eyes Only" pursuant to Sections 3(a) and (b) of the
Confidentiality Order.
Walgreen Company provides online medical products. The Company
sells prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other
products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
500 North Broadway, Suite 1450
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
-and-
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Carey Alexander, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
calexander@scott-scott.com
-and-
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 S. Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 531-2632
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
-and-
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Eric Dwoskin, 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
E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Pena Gets Final Certification of Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDUARDO PENA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:19-cv-04065-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Maxine M. Chesney entered an order:
1. finally certifying this Action as a class action, with the
Settlement Class defined as the collective group of all
persons making up the National Class and the California
Class, defined as follows:
-- "National Class" means those individuals who:
"(i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo direct
autoline of business; (ii) between July 16, 2017
through the date of preliminary approval; (iii) who
held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they
applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth
in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and (v) who
were not California residents as indicated in the "home
state" data field at the time they applied for credit
as set forth in the class data to be produced by Wells
Fargo;"
Excluded from the National Class are Wells Fargo, all
officers, directors, and employees of Wells Fargo, and
their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any
Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs,
and their immediate families;
-- "California Class" means those individuals who:
"(i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo direct
auto line of business; (ii) between July 16, 2017
through the date of preliminary approval; (iii) who
held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they
applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth
in the class data to be produced by Wells Fargo; and
(v) who were California residents as indicated in the
"home state" data field at the time they applied for
credit as set forth in the class data produced by Wells
Fargo;"
Excluded from the California Class are Wells Fargo, all
officers, directors, and employees of Wells Fargo, and
their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any
Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs,
and their immediate families.
2. appointing the Plaintiff Eduardo Pena as Class
Representative, and designating his counsel as Class
Counsel;
3. approving the Settlement set forth in the Agreement and
finding that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Parties.
-- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
The Plaintiff and Class Counsel have moved for an award
of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amount of
$500,000. The Court has considered this application
separately from this Judgment. The Court finds that an
award of $500,000 in attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses is fair and reasonable, and the Court approves
of Class Counsel attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in
this amount.
-- Class Representative Incentive Awards:
The Court further finds that an incentive award for the
Plaintiff Eduardo Pena in the amount of $5000 is fair
and reasonable, and the Court approves of the incentive
award in this amount. The Court directs the Settlement
Administrator to disburse this award to Plaintiff
Eduardo Pena as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
4. dismissing the Released Claims of all Settlement Class
Members, and the Released Claims in the Action in their
entirety with prejudice and without costs; and
5. dismissing all claims in the Action, and closing the case.
The Court said, "On August 21, 2020, this Court granted preliminary
approval to the proposed class action settlement set forth in the
Agreement between Plaintiff Eduardo Pena, individually and as class
representative on behalf of the Class, and Defendant Wells Fargo.
This Court also provisionally certified the Class for settlement
purposes, approved the procedure for giving Class Notice to the
members of the Class, and set a Final Approval Hearing to take
place on January 8, 2021. Based on the papers filed with the Court
and the presentations made to the Court by the Parties and by other
interested persons at the Final Approval Hearing, it appears to the
Court that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i8cQtA at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes, are:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Rachel Dempsey, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
rdempsey@outtengolden.com
- and -
Ossai Miazad, Esq.
Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: om@outtengolden.com
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com
Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, are:
Jamie D. Wells, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111-3821
Telephone: (415) 844-9944
Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
- and -
K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
Karla Johnson, Esq.
Tower Two-Sixty
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-6000
Facsimile: (412) 667-6050
WELLS FARGO: Perez Suit Wins Settlement Class Final Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MITZIE PEREZ and SERGIO
BARAJAS, individually, and ANDRES ACOSTA, TERESA DIAZ VEDOY,
VICTORIA RODAS, and SAMUEL TABARES VILLAFUERTE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00454-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M.
Chesney entered an order:
1. finally certifying this Action as a class action, with the
Settlement Class defined as the collective group of all
persons making up the National Class and the California
Class, defined as follows:
-- "National Class" means those individuals who:
"(i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo direct
autoline of business; (ii) between July 16, 2017
through the date of preliminary approval; (iii) who
held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they
applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth
in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and (v) who
were not California residents as indicated in the "home
state" data field at the time they applied for credit
as set forth in the class data to be produced by Wells
Fargo;"
Excluded from the National Class are Wells Fargo, all
officers, directors, and employees of Wells Fargo, and
their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any
Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs,
and their immediate families;
-- "California Class" means those individuals who:
"(i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo direct
auto line of business; (ii) between July 16, 2017
through the date of preliminary approval; (iii) who
held valid and unexpired DACAstatuss at the time they
applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth
in the class data to be produced by Wells Fargo; and
(v) who were California residents as indicated in the
"home state" data field at the time they applied for
credit as set forth in the class data produced by Wells
Fargo;"
Excluded from the California Class are Wells Fargo, all
officers, directors, and employees of Wells Fargo, and
their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any
Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs,
and their immediate families.
2. confirming the prior appointments of the Plaintiffs Victoria
Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and
Andres Acosta as Class Representatives for the Nationwide
Class and Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, and
Teresa Diaz Vedoy to serve as Class Representatives for the
California Class,
and their counsel as Class Counsel;
3. approving the Settlement set forth in the Agreement and
finding that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Parties.
-- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
The Plaintiff and Class Counsel have moved for an award
of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amount of
$500,000. The Court has considered this application
separately from this Judgment. The Court finds that an
award of $500,000 in attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses is fair and reasonable, and the Court approves
of Class Counsel attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in
this amount.
-- Class Representative Incentive Awards
The Court further finds that incentive awards for the
Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte,
Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and Andres Acosta in the amount of
$17,000 each are fair and reasonable, and the Court
approves of the incentive awards in this amount. The
Court directs the Settlement Administrator to disburse
this award to Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares
Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and Andres Acosta as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
-- Payments to Individual Plaintiffs
The Court further finds that individual payments for
the Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and Sergio Barajas in the
amount of $17,000 each are fair and reasonable, the
Court approves the individual payments in this amount.
The Court directs the Settlement Administrator to
disburse this award to Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and
Sergio Barajas as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
4. dismissing the Released Claims of all Settlement Class
Members, and the Released Claims in the Action in their
entirety with prejudice and without costs; and
5. dismissing all claims in the Action, and closing the case.
The Court said, "On August 21, 2020, this Court granted preliminary
approval to the proposed class action settlement set forth in the
Agreement between Plaintiff Eduardo Pena, individually and as class
representative on behalf of the Class, and Defendant Wells Fargo.
This Court also provisionally certified the Class for settlement
purposes, approved the procedure for giving Class Notice to the
members of the Class, and set a Final Approval Hearing to take
place on January 8, 2021. Based on the papers filed with the Court
and the presentations made to the Court by the Parties and by other
interested persons at the Final Approval Hearing, it appears to the
Court that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i8cQtA at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes, are:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Rachel Dempsey, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
rdempsey@outtengolden.com
- and -
Ossai Miazad, Esq.
Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: om@outtengolden.com
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com
Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, are:
Jamie D. Wells, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111-3821
Telephone: (415) 844-9944
Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
- and -
K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
Karla Johnson, Esq.
Tower Two-Sixty
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-6000
Facsimile: (412) 667-6050
WESTJET AIRLINES: B.C. Judge Approves Class Suit Over Baggage Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
A B.C Judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit can proceed
against WestJet for charging customers for checked baggage fees.
In a Jan. 6 B.C. Supreme Court decision, Justice Amy Francis ruled
a class-action suit filed by Dora Bergen and Phebe-Joy Trotman
against the airline had met the requirements needed to move forward
through the court.
The Justice's move, could theoretically, pave the way for tens of
thousands of WestJet passengers to claim fees they were charged for
checked-in luggage.
At the root of the issue is a $25 to $35 checked baggage fee some
WestJet airlines charged for checking in a bag.
According to the decision, the small print explaining WestJet
baggage charges contained conflicting information about the price
of the first checked bag on domestic and international WestJet
flights.
"The Tariffs said that a passenger's first checked bag was free and
they also said that a passenger's first checked bag would cost $25
to $35," the plaintiff says in the decision.
The decision says between September 2014 and February 2018, the
airline charged passengers travelling domestically on Econo Farres,
WestJet Vacations and Group Fares $25 for their first checked bag,
but said in its small print that the airline would "accept one
piece of checked baggage without charge."
WestJet's international flights had similar inconsistencies saying
"a first, second, third or fourth piece of checked baggage . . .
will be charged in accordance with the fee table," but went onto
say "for each fare-paying passenger travelling, the carrier permits
a free checked baggage allowance of one item."
The plaintiff in the suit has brought the claim on behalf of all
individuals "residing anywhere in the world" who travelled on a
fare-paying domestic WestJet-operated flight and paid a fee for
their first checked bag between September 2014 and February 2018.
The suit also extends to those who took international flights
between January 2016 and March 2019.
The court documents do not say if there was any particular incident
that spurred the plaintiffs to launch the class-action suit.
While much of the decision is given over to complex legal arguments
surrounding the competition act, WestJet does argue the
class-action suit should "exclude passengers" who did not read the
prices prior to booking their flights or paying for baggage fees.
However, Justice Francis dismissed the argument.
"That contract binds the parties even if they have not read it,"
the justice said in the decision.
WestJet also argues the Canada Transportation Agency should deal
with the case as the agency has protocols for dealing with customer
complaints.
Again, Justice Francis dismissed the airline's argument.
Ultimately, the Justice approved the class-action suit. [GN]
XEROX CORP: Court Denies Vollmers' Bid for Prelim. Injunction
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL VOLLMER and MARILYN VOLLMER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XEROX
CORPORATION, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE, XEROX MEDICAL CARE PLAN
FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES, XEROX DENTAL CARE PLAN, and XEROX
CORPORATION 1986 ENHANCED EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM, Defendants,
Case No. 20-CV-6979 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Charles J. Siragusa of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs Paul and Marilyn Vollmer filed the putative class action
against Xerox, alleging that it violated the terms of its employee
benefit plan and breached fiduciary and statutory duties when, in
January of 2019, it required all participants in the company's 1986
Enhanced Early Retirement Program to begin paying 50% of the
premiums for their medical and dental insurance.
Plaintiff Paul Vollmer was employed by Xerox from 1964 until
January 1987. During that period, both Mr. and Mrs. Vollmer, were
enrolled in the medical and dental insurance plans provided by
Xerox. For much of that time, Xerox paid the full cost of the
plans. However, in 1983 Xerox notified employees it would begin
requiring some level of employee contribution.
In a letter dated Oct. 17, 1986, Xerox informed Mr. Vollmer that he
met the eligibility requirements for the Enhanced Early Retirement
Program ("ERP"). The letter stated that eligible employees who
elected to retire by Jan. 31, 1987 would be able to obtain medical
and dental insurance for themselves and their respective spouses
for the rest of their lives through the original retiree plans
("Old Plan"), which did not require a contribution from plan
participants toward the annual premiums. After receiving the
eligibility letter, Mr. and Mrs. Vollmer attended two workshops
together on the ERP.
Thereafter, Mr. Vollmer elected to take early retirement through
the program. For almost 32 years, the Vollmers received medical
and dental insurance through the Old Plan, and were not required to
make any contributions to the premium payments. They did not
budget or save for medical expenses other than deductibles and
copays because they believed they had been promised lifetime,
noncontributory benefits.
Then, in October 2018, Xerox notified the Vollmers that, effective
Jan. 1, 2019, they would be required to share 50% of the premium
cost of coverage under the Old Plan, that Xerox would not
contribute toward the cost of alternate coverage, and that plan
participants would not be permitted to re-enroll in the Old Plan at
a later date if at any time they discontinued participation. The
Vollmers were advised that the monthly cost of their medical and
dental coverage would be $260.47 each, for a total of $520.94 per
month. They researched other plans, but the alternate plans did
not provide the same benefits as the Old Plan, and it would be cost
prohibitive to duplicate the benefits of the Old Plan in an
alternate plan.
Consequently, the Vollmers continued to participate in the Old Plan
and began paying monthly premiums. In a letter dated Nov. 9, 2018,
the Vollmers initiated a claim with the Plan Administrator
Committee to enforce their rights to non-contributory coverage
under the Old Plan. That claim was denied in April 2019, and the
denial stated, in part, that Section 7.1 of Old Plan states that
Xerox reserves the right to amend, suspend or terminate the Plan at
any time and for any reason.
The Vollmers appealed, and the Plan Administrator Committee denied
the appeal, stating again that Section 7.1 of Old Plan states that
Xerox reserves the right to amend, suspend or terminate the plan at
any time and for any reason. The denial letter also informed the
Vollmers of their right to file suit against Xerox under ERISA.
Such an action may only be brought in Federal District Court in
Monroe County, New York and must be commenced within the later of
180 days after the date of the Committee's determination of the
appeal.
While the Vollmers' appeal was being considered by the Plan
Administrator Committee, Mrs. Vollmer had contacted attorneys and
the Department of Labor to help stave off the contribution
requirements. She was unsuccessful in finding representation, and
continued to search for counsel after receiving the Plan
Administrator Committee's denial of their appeal. In late May
2020, the Vollmers secured counsel, and the counsel entered into an
agreement with Xerox to toll the 180-day limitations period until
Nov. 16, 2020.
When the tolling agreement expired, the Vollmers filed the present
case on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. As
indicated, the Vollmers' complaint includes two causes of action.
Count 1 alleges Xerox's violation of the terms of the Old Plan,
actionable under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B). Count 2 alleges
Xerox's violation of fiduciary and statutory duties, actionable
under ERISA Section 502(a)(3).
The Vollmers subsequently filed the application for a preliminary
injunction which is now before the Court, asking that pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Xerox be enjoined from requiring participants
in the Old Plan and their spouses to contribute to the cost of the
plan's premiums, and ordered to allow former plan participants to
re-enroll in the Old Plan. The Court heard oral argument via
video-conference on Dec. 23, 2020.
Judge Siragusa examines whether the Plaintiffs seek a prohibitory
or mandatory preliminary injunction. He finds that the positions
the parties occupied prior to implementation of the premium payment
requirement in January 2019 is the last actual, peaceable
uncontested status preceding the present controversy. For
approximately 32 years, until January of 2019, the Vollmers were
provided with medical and dental insurance under the Old Plan
without contributing to the premium payments. Immediately upon
notification of the requirement that they contribute toward premium
payments beginning in January 2019, the Vollmers contested the
payments: first using the claims and appeals process through the
plan administrators, and then by initiating the present litigation.
Therefore, the Judge determines that the Vollmers are seeking a
prohibitory preliminary injunction.
Having determined that the Vollmers seek a prohibitory preliminary
injunction, the Judge must now evaluate whether they have satisfied
their burden of persuasion. He finds that the Vollmers do not
submit any evidence that would suggest they faced an involuntary
termination of coverage, or that the harm they potentially faced
could not be remedied by an award of monetary damages. On the
contrary, Xerox has expressed its intent to continue the plan, and
to continue to permit the Vollmers to participate in the plan
provided they contribute 50% of the plan's annual premiums.
While such a shift from a non-contributory position no doubt
imposes a financial burden on the Vollmers, nothing in their
submissions suggests that they face an imminent termination of
coverage. Instead, the Vollmers indicate that the premium payments
consume 20% of their income, and simply detail some of the
financial sacrifices they have had to make to continue to maintain
coverage under the plan, including: refinancing their home, selling
one of their vehicles, downgrading TV subscriptions, foregoing
outings to dinner and a movie, limiting travel, and cutting their
own hair. Consequently, the Vollmers have failed to demonstrate
irreparable harm.
The Vollmers' motion for a preliminary injunction is, therefore,
denied. The Defendants are directed to respond to the Plaintiffs'
complaint as agreed in the waiver of service.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5oyba4d from Leagle.com.
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Hine Sues Over Analysts' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK B. HINE, an individual, on his own behalf, and in his
representative capacity on behalf of all other similarly situated
Aggrieved Employees v. XPONENTIAL FITNESS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; XPONENTIAL FITNESS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01176106-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Dec. 23,
2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the California Labor
Code for unreimbursed expenses incurred in the discharge of
work-related duties.
The Plaintiff is working for the Defendants as a financial analyst
in Irvine, California. Despite Defendants' requirement that
Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees use their personal cell
phones and other electronic devices and Internet services, to
perform their job duties, Defendants never reimbursed them for the
expenses they incurred in doing so.
Xponential Fitness LLC owns and operates recreational centers. The
Company offers boutique fitness space including pilates, cycle,
stretch, and rowing, as well as provides one-on-one personalized
stretching services. Xponential Fitness serves customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
E-mail: reception@jnwpc.com
*********
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 ***