/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210202.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 2, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 18
Headlines
4520 CORP: Lutts Sues Over Cancer-Causing Asbestos Products
9F INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
A.R. PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Bonilla Suit Claims
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Tries to Decertify Gender Pay Equity Class Suit
ALLIANCE FUNDING: Court Certifies $100MM TCPA Class Action
ALORICA INC: Burton Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for CSRs
ALTITUDE GROUP: Carango Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ARKEMA INC: 5th Cir. Vacates Class Certification on Explosion Suit
ASHNA INC: Website Lacks Accessibility Information, Garcia Claims
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 29 Deadline
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Lawsuit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of March 29 Deadline
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of March 27 Deadline
BAY RIDGE: Friedlander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
BEST WESTERN: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Claims
BIT DIGITAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BIT DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Announces Securities Class Action
BIT DIGITAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BOLD TRANSPORTATION: Misclassifies Yar Hostlers, Roggenkamp Claims
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
CANADA: Faces Prison Staff Suit Over Racist Work Environments
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Announces Restructuring Support Agreement
CD PROJEKT: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CHAOYANG TIANMA: Website Lacks Access Features' Info, Garcia Claims
CHARLES SCHWAB: Seeks Dismissal of Charity Class Action Lawsuit
CHEMICAL AND MINING: April 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHINA: Refuses to Accept Service of Berman's COVID-19 Class Action
CLEANSPARK INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLEANSPARK INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLEANSPARK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 22 Deadline
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY: Heidger Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
COMERCIA BANK: El-Hage Appeals E.D. Mich. Ruling to 6th Circuit
CONAIR CORPORATION: Gonsalves Sues Over Defective Toaster Ovens
CORVIAS: Lawyers File More Motions Asking to Drop Class-Action
COTTER CORP: Eight Circuit Appeal Filed in Banks Class Suit
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Lombard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COVIA HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 8 Deadline
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Averts Data Breach Class Action Certification
DUS SAMARTHA: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Says
ELEMENT MATERIALS: Flores Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
EMPIRE TWIN: Sargsyan Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
ERIE INSURANCE: High Tech Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
ERIE INSURANCE: Hutch & Associates Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
ERIE INSURANCE: Zavogiannis Suit Moved From E.D. Tenn. to W.D. Pa.
EXXON MOBIL: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: $12MM Class Settlement to be Distributed
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Preis FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
FRANCE: Racial Profiling by Police Challenged in Class Action
FUN TOWN ENTERPRISES: Springman Seeks Unpaid Technicians' Overtime
GANNETT CO: Must Face Call Center Workers' FLSA Class Action
GATES FINEST: Andrade Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers
GEICO GENERAL: Cordon Insurance Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Faulty Airbags
GOOD DAY: Garcia Says Website Lacks Accessibility Info for Disabled
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: Valentin Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GRAND PASADENA: Garcia Seeks Website Accessibility Information
GUNVANTBHAI PATEL: Online Reservation Violates ADA, Garcia Claims
HAMMOND'S CANDIES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HILL: Miller Files RICO Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
HILLTOP SECURITIES: Fistanic Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
HOTEL2SUITES LLC: Garcia Says Website Lacks Accessibility Info
IANTHUS EMPIRE: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violations
INCGSGI INC: Misclassifies Security Guards, Vela Suit Alleges
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: March 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Allen et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEY MECHANICAL: Stafford Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Wash.
LANDWIN HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
LIZHI INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
LONG TZONG: Faces Garcia Suit Over Online Room's Access Features
LUBBOCK, TX: Class Action Suit Filed Over Contaminated Water Wells
LUCKIN COFFEE: Gopu Securities Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
MCGRAW HILL: Reduces Royalties Paid to Authors, Flynn Suit Alleges
MEI-FU INC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Online Room's Access Features
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PEOPLESBANK: Tully Employment Class Suit Goes to D. Massachusetts
PETSCRIPT INC: Animal Medical Center Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
PRINCETON, NJ: Saunders Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 3rd Circuit
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Pawar Law Group Reminds of March 8 Deadline
RANCHHODJI LLC: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Says
RAY MOLES: Colores Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
RING LLC: Jack Consumer Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
RIOT GAMES: Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs to Arbitrate
RIPPLE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Florida Over XRP Tokens
ROAD SCHOLAR: Underpays Truck Drivers, Williams Suit Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Levi & Korsinsky to Probe Securities Class Suit
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: May Face Securities Class Action From App Users
ROMANTIC DEPOT: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ROSEN HOTELS: Former Employee Files Class Suit Over Unpaid Backpay
RUBBERMAID INCORPORATED: Turk Files Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
S&J CRAZY: Franchi Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: LC3S Inc. Files Suit in Cal. State Court
SHELL ENERGY: Katz Files Suit in S.D. California
SIGNIFY HEALTH: Faces Shep Suit Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
SOAR COLLECTIVE: Faces TCPA Class Action Suit in California
SOLARWINDS CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Class Action
SONA NANOTECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 16 Deadline
STATE FARM: Faces $13MM Overcharging Class Action in Missouri
STEELE COUNTY, MN: Former Inmates File Class Action v. Sheriff
SUNRISE CREDIT: Eizikovitz Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
TECHNY ADVISORS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEMPO INTERACTIVE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Court Tosses False Advertising Class Action
TRANSLINK: Ex-Transit Worker Files Data Breach Class Action
TUBELOX TOYS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNILEVER PLC: TRESemme Products Cause Hair Loss, Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Huisha-Huisha Files Suit in District of Columbia
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Beck Labor Suit in California
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Announces Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
VERY GREAT: Faces Nisbett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VOICE OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Employment Practices
VOYAGER THERAPEUTIC: Holzer & Holzer Files Securities Class Action
WALMART INC: Gabertan Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Aguilera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
[*] Bennett Jones Attorneys Review Notable Class Action Updates
[*] Class Action Mulled Against Capitol Rioters Over Damages
[*] Pandemic Personnel Issues Prompt Wage & Hour Class Action
*********
4520 CORP: Lutts Sues Over Cancer-Causing Asbestos Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
LORRAINE C. LUTTS and ROBERT C. LUTTS, SR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 4520 CORP,
INC.; ABB, INC.; AECOM ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION f/k/a URS Energy &
Construction f/k/a Washington Group International sii to Morrison
Knudson Company Inc. and H.K. Ferguson and sii to Raytheon
Engineers & Constructors, Inc. f/k/a United Engineers &
Constructors Inc., Raytheon Constructors Inc. f/k/a Catalytic Inc.
and Stearns-Roger Corporation Company; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; AMETEK,
INC., individually and as successor to Schutte & Koerting; AMTROL,
INC. individually and as successor to Thrush Products, Inc.;
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ARVOS LJUNGSTROM LLC; ATLANTIC CITY
ELECTRIC COMPANY; AURORA PUMP; BEAZER EAST, INC., f/k/a Koppers
Company, Inc., and successor in interest to Thiem Corporation and
Universal Refractories Company; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC, as
successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner Corporation; BRAND INSULATIONS,
INC.; BW/IP Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries; CALON
INSULATION CORP.; CALPINE NEW JERSEY GENERATION LLC; CARRIER
CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.; CLYDE UNION
INC.; COASTAL EAGLE POINT OIL COMPANY; COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY OF
POTTSTOWN; COMPUDYNE, LLC; COOPER INDUSTRIES LLC, individually and
as Successor in Interest to Crouse-Hinds; COUNTY INSULATION
COMPANY; CRANE CO.; CROSBY VALVE, LLC; DCO, LLC, formerly known as
Dana Companies, LLC; DELAWARE CITY REFINING COMPANY, LLC; DELVAL
EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; EATON CORPORATION, as successor in interest
to Eaton Electrical, Inc. and Cutler-Hammer, Inc.; EL PASO, LLC;
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., individually and as successor to
Tappan and Copes Vulcan; EMCOR GROUP, INC.; EMCOR
MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL SERVICES (EAST), INC.; ENERPAC TOOL GROUP
CORP., f/k/a ACTUANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Bear Manufacturing Co.; EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC;
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; FEDERAL MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
TRUST as successor to Felt Products Manufacturing Co.; FISHER
CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC; FLOWSERVE US, INC. as
successor-in-interest to Durametallic Corporation; FLOWSERVE US,
INC., solely as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Edward
Valve, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, Inc. and Edward Vogt Company; FLUOR
CONSTRUCTORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FMC CORPORATION, on behalf of its
former Peerless Pump, Northern Pump and Construction Equipment
Group businesses; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; FULTON BOILER
WORKS, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GARDNER DENVER, INC; GOULD
ELECTRONICS INC., as successor in interest to I-T-E Circuit
Breaker; GOULDS PUMPS LLC f/k/a Goulds Pumps Incorporated; GRAVER
WATER SYSTEMS LLC; GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; GREENE, TWEED &
CO., INC.; GRINNELL LLC; GUYON GENERAL PIPING, INC.; HAJOCA
CORPORATION; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Honeywell Inc;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., individually and as successor to
Alliedsignal, Inc., The Bendix Corporation; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.;
ITT LLC; J.A. SEXAUER, INC.; J.J. WHITE INC.; JOHN CRANE INC.;
JOSEPH OAT CORPORATION; JOY GLOBAL UNDERGROUND MINING LLC f/k/a Joy
Technologies LLC and as successor in interest to
Allen-Sherman-Hoff; KEELER/DORR OLIVER BOILER COMPANY; KINNEY
VACUUM COMPANY; MADSEN AND HOWELL, INC.; MCALLISTER TOWING AND
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; MCCONNELL HOLDINGS, INC., dba Adamson
Global Technology; METALLO GASKET COMPANY; METROPOLITAN EDISON
COMPANY; MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, LLC.; MUNACO SEALING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
f/k/a Munaco Packing & Rubber Co., Inc., a South Carolina
Corporation; NAB CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; NEWARC WELDING &
FABRICATING CORP.; NOOTER CORPORATION; NRG ENERGY, INC.;
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; PAULSBORO REFINING COMPANY, LLC; PBF
ENERGY INC.; PSEG FOSSIL LLC; PSEG NUCLEAR LLC; PSEG POWER LLC;
PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP INC.; RARITAN GROUP INCORPORATED;
RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY; RIGGS DISTLER & COMPANY, INC.; RILEY
POWER, INC.; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., as successor in interest to
Allen-Bradley Company, LLC; RUST ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION INC.
as successor to Rust Engineering Co.; SANTA FE BRAUN, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to C.F. Braun & Co., C.F.
Braun Constructors, Inc., and JGC, Inc.; SAUDI REFINING INC.;
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., formerly known as Square D Company;
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., successor in interest to Siemens Energy &
Automation, Inc.; SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC. formerly known as Bechtel
Corporation; SITHE ENERGIES INC.; SULZER PUMPS (US) INC.; SUNOCO
LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sunoco, Inc.;
SUNOCO (R&M), LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sun
Ship LLC; SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC.; TACO, INC.; TEXACO, INC.;
TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE.
J.R. CLARKSON COMPANY LLC, successor by merger to Anderson,
Greenwood & Co., Kunkle Industries, Inc., and J.E. Lonergan; THE
WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED CONVEYOR
CORPORATION; UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION; URS CORPORATION,
ultimate parent of URS Energy & Construction, Inc. f/k/a Washington
Group International, Inc. f/k/a/ Morrison Knudsen Corporation,
successor-in-interest to United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.,
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc., H.K. Ferguson, Inc.,
Catalytic, Inc. and Stearns-Roger Corp.; VALERO ENERGY CORP.;
VIACOMCBS INC., f/k/a CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation f/k/a
Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation, f/k/a/ Westinghouse Electric Corporation; WARREN PUMPS
LLC; WATSON MCDANIEL COMPANY; WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC.,
d/b/a Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc.; YUBA HEAT TRANSFER LLC; ZACK
POWER & INDUSTRIAL COMPANY; ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC; JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-50; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 51-100, Defendants, Case
No. MID-L-000479-21 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., January 22, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of
express and implied warranties, and strict liability in tort.
The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, advertising and
distribution of defective asbestos products. The Defendants failed
to warn and negligently supplied defective materials and products
without ensuring that Plaintiff Lorraine C. Lutts and her husband's
employers were warned about the dangers of asbestos exposure. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged actions and omissions, Plaintiff
Lorraine C. Lutts inhaled or ingested asbestos dust and fibers that
causes her to be diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused
cancer.
4520 Corp, Inc. is a manufacturer of power-driven handtool located
in Portland, Oregon.
ABB, Inc. is a power and automation technology company based in
Switzerland.
AECOM Energy & Construction is a construction engineering firm
located in Aiken, South Carolina.
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation is an industrial equipment
supplier in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
AMETEK, Inc. is an American global manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices, headquartered in
Pennsylvania.
AMTROL, Inc. is a manufacturer of industrial machinery and
equipment based in Rhode Island.
Armstrong International, Inc. is a company that offers steam
trapping and steam tracing equipment, steam system testing and
monitoring products, and condensate recovery equipment,
headquartered in Michigan.
Arvos Ljungstrom LLC is a manufacturer of industrial machinery and
equipment based in New York.
Atlantic City Electric Company is an energy company based in
Delaware.
Aurora Pump is an industrial equipment supplier in North Aurora,
Illinois.
Beazer East, Inc. is an environmental consulting services company
based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC is an insurance company based in Auburn
Hills, Michigan.
Brand Insulations, Inc. is a professional insulation contractor
based in Downsview, Ontario.
Calon Insulation Corp. is an insulation company based in Edison,
New Jersey.
Calpine New Jersey Generation LLC is an electric generator based in
New Jersey.
Carrier Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) company located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is an energy services provider based in San
Ramon, California.
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. is a manufacturer of boiler room products and
systems based in Georgia.
Clyde Union Inc. is a supplier of pump technologies based in Battle
Creek, Michigan.
Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company is an energy and petroleum products
company based in New Jersey.
Columbia Boiler Company of Pottstown is a plumbing company based in
Pennsylvania.
Compudyne, LLC is a provider of information technology (IT)
services located in Minnesota.
Cooper Industries LLC is a provider of electrical products based in
Houston, Texas.
County Insulation Company is an insulation company in Delaware.
Crane Co. is an American industrial products company based in
Stamford, Connecticut.
Crosby Valve, LLC is a manufacturer of industrial valve products
based in New Jersey.
DCO, LLC is an energy development company based in Perrysburg,
Ohio.
Delaware City Refining Company, LLC is a petroleum processing
refinery company in Delaware.
Delval Equipment Corporation is a distributor of industrial
machinery and equipment based in Pennsylvania.
Eaton Corporation is a multinational power management company based
in Dublin, Ireland.
El Paso, LLC is a natural gas transportation services company based
in Houston, Texas.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is an electrical appliances
manufacturer in Charlotte, North Carolina.
EMCOR Group, Inc. is a provider of mechanical and electrical
construction, industrial and energy infrastructure and facilities
services in Norwalk, Connecticut.
EMCOR Mechanical/Electrical Services (East), Inc. is a provider of
mechanical and electrical construction, industrial and energy
infrastructure and facilities services in Norwalk, Connecticut.
Enerpac Tool Group Corp. is an industrial tools and services
company based in Wisconsin.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC is an energy provider in Chicago,
Illinois.
Exxon Mobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.
Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust is a trust created by
the Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of the Federal–Mogul Corporation.
Fisher Controls International LLC is an electrical/electronic
manufacturing company based in Sherman, Texas.
Flowserve US, Inc. is a manufacturer of flow control products
located in Irving, Texas.
Fluor Constructors International, Inc. is a construction
engineering company based in South Carolina.
FMC Corporation is an American chemical manufacturing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation is an energy company based in New
York, New York and New Jersey.
Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. is a boiler manufacturer in Pulaski, New
York.
General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
Gardner Denver, Inc. is a provider of compressors, blowers, and
vacuum pumps based in Davidson, North Carolina.
Gould Electronics Inc. is a manufacturer of electronics and
batteries based in Eichstetten, Germany.
Goulds Pumps LLC is a manufacturer of pumps, motors, and
accessories based in Seneca Falls, New York.
Graver Water Systems LLC is a manufacturer of water and wastewater
treatment equipment based in New Jersey.
Graybar Electric Company, Inc. is an American employee-owned
corporation, based in Clayton, Missouri.
Greene, Tweed & Co., Inc. is a chemical industry company based in
Pennsylvania.
Grinnell LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of pipes based in
Boca Raton, Florida.
Guyon General Piping, Inc. is a piping company based in Houston,
Texas.
Hajoca Corporation is a plumbing, heating and industrial supplier
in Pennsylvania.
Honeywell International, Inc. is an American publicly traded,
multinational conglomerate headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
IMO Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of rotary pumps, positive
displacement pumps, screw pumps and gear pumps based in North
Carolina.
ITT LLC is an American worldwide manufacturing company based in
White Plains, New York.
J.A. Sexauer, Inc. is a distributor of plumbing repair and
maintenance products located in New York.
J.J. White Inc. is a contractor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
John Crane Inc. is a provider of engineered products and services
based in Chicago, Illinois.
Joseph Oat Corporation is a designer and fabricator of pressure
vessels, reactors, columns, heat exchangers, and other specialty
items based in Camden, New Jersey.
Joy Global Underground Mining LLC is a manufacturer of underground
mining machinery based in Pennsylvania.
Keeler/Dorr Oliver Boiler Company is a boiler manufacturer based in
Missouri.
Kinney Vacuum Company is a manufacturer of vacuum pumps based in
Illinois.
Madsen and Howell, Inc. is an industrial equipment supplier in
Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
McAllister Towing and Transportation Company is a marine towing and
transportation company in New York, New York.
McConnell Holdings, Inc. is a consulting services company based in
Kinston, North Carolina.
Metallo Gasket Company is a gasket manufacturer in New Brunswick,
New Jersey.
Metropolitan Edison Company is a provider of utility services based
in Ohio.
Motiva Enterprises, LLC is an energy company headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
Munaco Sealing Solutions, Inc. is a rubber products supplier in
Greenville, South Carolina.
NAB Construction Corporation is a provider of construction services
based in New York.
Newarc Welding & Fabricating Corp. is a welder in Wilmington,
Delaware.
Nooter Corporation is a national construction contractor based in
Missouri.
NRG Energy, Inc. is nuclear electric power generation company based
in Princeton, New Jersey and Houston, Texas.
Parker-Hannifin Corporation is an American corporation specializing
in motion and control technologies in Cleveland, Ohio.
Paulsboro Refining Company, LLC is an oil refinery in Greenwich
Township, New Jersey.
PBF Energy Inc. is a petroleum refiner and supplier of unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oils, lubricants, petrochemical
feedstocks, and other petroleum products based in New Jersey.
PSEG Fossil LLC is a provider of electric and gas services based in
Newark, New Jersey.
PSEG Nuclear LLC is a manufacturer of iron and steel forging
products based in Newark, New Jersey.
PSEG Power LLC is an energy company based in Newark, New Jersey.
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. is an energy company
headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
Raritan Group Incorporated is a piping company based in Edison, New
Jersey.
Rheem Manufacturing Company is a manufacturer of residential and
commercial water heaters and boilers based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Riggs Distler & Company, Inc. is a provider of utility
installation, repair, and construction services based in New
Jersey.
Riley Power, Inc. is a manufacturer of steam boiler parts and fuel
burning equipment based in Massachusetts.
Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an American provider of industrial
automation and information technology headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
Rust Engineering and Construction Inc. is a provider of engineering
services based in Birmingham, Alabama.
Santa Fe Braun, Inc. is an oil drilling and construction company in
California.
Saudi Refining Inc. is a distributor of petroleum products based in
Houston, Texas.
Schneider Electric USA, Inc. is an energy management and automation
company based in Massachusetts.
Siemens Industry, Inc. is a provider of engineering and
technological solutions based in Illinois.
Sequoia Ventures, Inc. is a venture capital company based in San
Francisco, California.
Sithe Energies Inc. is an energy company based in New York.
Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of
centrifugal pumps based in Portland, Oregon.
Sunoco LP is an independent fuel distributor based in Dallas,
Texas.
Sunoco (R&M), LLC is a petroleum products company based in Newtown
Square, Pennsylvania.
Superior Boiler Works, Inc. is a boiler manufacturer in Kansas.
Taco, Inc. is a manufacturer of commercial and residential hydronic
systems based in Rhode Island.
Texaco, Inc. is an energy company based in White Plains, New York.
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. is an oil and gas refining and
marketing company located in Texas.
The Chemours Company is a chemical company based in Wilmington,
Delaware.
The J.R. Clarkson Company LLC is an automation technology located
in Texas.
The William Powell Company is an industrial valve manufacturer
based in Ohio.
Union Carbide Corporation is a chemical company based in Houston,
Texas.
United Conveyor Corporation is a material handling and
environmental solutions company located in Illinois.
United States Steel Corporation is an American integrated steel
producer headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
URS Corporation is an engineering, design, and construction firm
headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Valero Energy Corp. is an energy company based in San Antonio,
Texas.
ViacomCBS Inc. is a mass media company based in New York, New
York.
Warren Pumps LLC is a machinery company based in Warren,
Massachusetts.
Watson McDaniel Company is a manufacturer of specialty steam and
fluid products based in Pennsylvania.
Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of industrial
valve products in Ipswich, Massachusetts.
Yuba Heat Transfer LLC is a supplier of heat transfer equipment
based in Oklahoma.
Zack Power & Industrial Company is a utility services company based
in Indiana.
Zurn Industries, LLC is plumbing products and accessories company
based in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clayton L. Thompson, Esq.
Jason Yampolsky, Esq.
MAUNE RAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD LLC
230 S. Broad Street, Suite 1010
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (800) 358-5922
9F INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of 9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.
9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering conducted on or about August 14,
2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or between August 14, 2019 and
September 29, 2020 (the "Class Period")
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
In August 2019, defendants held the IPO, selling approximately 8.9
million American depositary shares ("ADSs") to the investing public
at $9.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement
By the commencement of this action, the Company's shares trade
significantly below the IPO price.
The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the
materials supporting the Offering, and defendants throughout the
Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the purported value and benefits of the
Company's financial institution partners and its tri-party
cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were
materially overstated, given that 9F and Property and Casualty
Company Limited ("PICC") had been engaged in an ongoing contractual
dispute regarding payment of service fees under the Cooperation
Agreement; (2) the collectability of service fees owed to 9F by
PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in doubt and at serious
risk of non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC
would no longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection
to investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's platform, business model, reputation
and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) as a
result, defendants' statements about the Company's 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.
For more information on the 9F class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/JFU
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
A.R. PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Bonilla Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
REYNA BONILLA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. A.R. PRODUCE & TRUCKING CORPORATION and ANA MARTINEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20290-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 22,
2021) brings this complaint against the Defendants to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
March 8, 2018 to September 11, 2019 as a labor worker.
The Plaintiff alleges that although she worked approximately an
average of 60 hours per week, the Defendant did not properly
compensate her at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay
for hours she worked in excess of 40 per week. Allegedly, the
Corporate Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff her lawfully earned overtime wages, which accumulated
from the date of hire and/or from 3 years back from the date of the
filing of this complaint, as required by the federal law.
A.R. Produce & Trucking Corporation is a food packing and
transportation company. Ana Martinez served as a President of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Tries to Decertify Gender Pay Equity Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Dunlap at nmpoliticalreport.com reports that the City of
Albuquerque filed a motion to try to prevent a class action lawsuit
that alleges gender pay discrimination.
About 600 women joined four original plaintiffs in 2020 to create a
class action lawsuit to seek redress for alleged gender pay
discrimination. The original four plaintiffs filed their suit in
2018.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Alexandra Freedman Smith, said the pay
inequity is so significant, that in some cases, the plaintiffs are
alleging there is as much as a $7 an hour difference between what
men are paid and what women are paid for the same job. Freedman
Smith said some of the women are owed around $100,000 because of
the pay differential.
The state passed the Fair Pay for Women Act in 2013, which made it
unlawful for both private and public employers to pay women less
than men for equal work which requires equal skill, effort and
responsibility and that is performed under similar working
conditions.
The only exceptions are seniority, merit or if earnings are
measured by the quantity or quality of production.
Freedman Smith said the alleged gender pay discrimination affects
more than salaries. It also affects their overtime pay and
pensions.
"It's a huge impact over time in terms of lost wages, overtime and
retirement," Freedman Smith said. "The women who work for the City
of Albuquerque deserve better under this administration. They
deserve the pay entitled under the law."
The Albuquerque City Attorney's office said it could not comment on
ongoing litigation, but added the following:
"The current administration has been at the forefront of the pay
equity fight for years, including leading the first statewide study
of pay equity while at the State Auditor's office and continues to
advance fairness now."
Keller, in his role as state auditor, produced a report in 2017 on
gender pay inequities across industries. At the time, he criticized
then-Gov. Susana Martinez for not tracking gender pay rates by
state agencies and state vendors.
The City of Albuquerque announced that it, along with Bernalillo
County and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority, would
promote gender pay equality among the contractors it does business
with by offering an incentive. Freedman Smith called the initiative
hypocritical.
"It's particularly egregious (Mayor Tim Keller's office) came out
with something saying we want to have pay equity for women by
giving preference to contractors who pay men and women equally.
Mayor Keller needs to lead by example instead of fighting the women
who work for him and instead of steadfastly refusing them what they
should be paid under the law," Freedman Smith told NM Political
Report.
The policy, which went into effect, means businesses can receive a
5 percent preference when trying to win a contract to do business
with any of the three governmental agencies if they can show that
men and women performing the same work or similar work are paid the
same wage.
A spokesperson for Keller's office, Sarah Wheeler, called the
initiative "important," in an emailed message to New Mexico
Political Report.
"We have to use every tool in our toolbox to close the pay equity
gap. This important step to closing the pay equity gap with
companies who bid for government contracts will have a positive
impact on our entire region. The playing field won't be level until
women, and especially women of color, earn fair wages compared to
their counterparts," Wheeler wrote. "No contractors are certified
under the 0 percent pay differential standard which shows just how
important it is for all of us to take every step we can."
But Freedman Smith said the city offering a 5 percent deferential
to contractors who pay equitably for both genders would not
necessarily mean those contractors would get the bid. She said that
since paying women less for the same work is against the law, she
believes the City of Albuquerque should refuse to do business with
contractors who do not pay their female workers the same as their
male workers for the same work.
"Don't hire companies that don't follow the law and lead by example
by following the law yourself," Freedman Smith said. [GN]
ALLIANCE FUNDING: Court Certifies $100MM TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that a federal
district court just used the phrase "wink wink" in a TCPA class
action certification ruling with $100MM at stake and I just can't.
And somehow that isn't even the weirdest part of the ruling.
So here's what happened:
Some company sent some faxes back in 2011. (2011 people. Back then
I wasn't even the only one using a blackberry.)
The Plaintiff claimed the faxes were sent without consent. There
were over 200,000 faxes sent -- which using the TCPA's magical
(horrible) statutory damages means that Defendant is staring at
over $100,000,000.00 in minimum statutory damages.
Of course, the case can never be certified since Plaintiff would
have to prove that the faxes were sent without consent across the
entire class using common evidence, which it could never do.
Just kidding.
Instead, the Court impermissibly put the burden of proving consent
on the Defendant -- and when the Defendant seemingly met that
burden, albeit it meekly, the Court summarily disregarded it and
certified the case anyway.
TCPAWorld is fun, right?
So… here's what happened:
In Vandenberg & Sons Furniture, Inc. v. Alliance Funding Grp., Case
No. 1:15-CV-1255, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11970 (W.D. Mich. January
22, 2021) the Court found that the Defendant simply had not
explained where the fax numbers at issue had come from or
convincingly demonstrated the existence of a written policy.
(Importantly-it should have been Plaintiff's burden to prove that
the numbers all came from the same source -- not the Defendant's
burden of proving multi-source -- but we can discuss that outside
the context of this blog.)
Here's the meat of the analysis:
"Based on the lack of records, this Court, like the magistrate
judge, has difficulty accepting as fact that Alliance had a policy
of obtaining consent before sending any fax. Alliance did not send
just a few faxes. It paid WestFax over $13,000 to send 465,758
pages. How did Alliance obtain the fax numbers? Where is the
company's written policy? Where are the sales representatives
testifying as to following any policy? At the hearing, the Court
expressed concern as to why Vandenberg did not depose any sales
representative. Vandenberg responded that Alliance did not disclose
any such witness. The record contains no evidence as to the number
of sales representatives employed by Alliance. Because Alliance has
not disclosed any sales representative other than the Vice
President of Sales and Sales Manager as a possible witness in
discovery, it is unlikely that any sales representative will be
permitted to testify for Alliance at trial."
And here's the "wink wink" part:
"Allowing Alliance to defeat class certification based solely on
the testimony of two management employees regarding an unwritten
policy would create a roadmap for future companies to defeat class
certification. In other words, "Send the fax but be sure to destroy
all evidence of to whom you sent it." Or, Alliance may have had
such a policy -- wink, wink -- fully expecting or even encouraging
its employees to ignore the policy. This is not to say that
Alliance did not have this unwritten policy. But, as of now, the
Court finds that whether such a policy existed can be decided at
the class level."
Yep. "Wink wink."
So the Court essentially refuses to credit the Defendant's evidence
at the class certification stage and suggests it could just be
making up the fact that they had a policy to seek consent to call
the numbers. And while the Court chastises Defendant for failing to
come forth with evidence of consent it was actually the Plaintiff
that owed the burden to prove an absence of consent can be
demonstrated using common evidence. (Don't let the substantive
burden on the issue of consent confuse you -- the issue is whether
consent can be proven on a classwide basis.)
Now, in fairness, the Court is correct that whether a policy exists
to obtain consent can be proven on a classwide basis -- but whether
the policy was violated with respect to specific faxes cannot be
and that is the point. By failing to credit the existence of a
policy to begin with, however, the Court has essentially created an
assumption of guilt that enabled certification of a case that
should not have been certifiable.
And all of this over faxes from 2011. And with $100MM on the line.
Eesh.
Take aways here:
Unlike love, TCPA violations are forever (J/K -- love is forever
too);
Have a written TCPA policy. No seriously, have one.
Don't send faxes.
Don't send 100s of thousands of faxes.
Have a written TCPA policy.
Always assume that the court will (improperly but commonly) impose
a burden on a TCPA defendant to prove consent, even though it
really shouldn't do that;
Do not assume that a court will credit perfectly admissible and
uncontradicted evidence about an unwritten TCPA policy;
Have a written TCPA policy.
$100MM is a lot of money.
2011 was a long time ago.
Have a written TCPA policy. [GN]
ALORICA INC: Burton Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for CSRs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BARBARA BURTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALORICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00187 (N.D. Ohio, January 22, 2021) challenges the
Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not compensate her and
other similarly situated customer service representatives (CSRs)
for the time they spent performing pre-shift duties which are
integral and indispensable part of other principal activities
performed by them. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees were not paid overtime compensation
for all of the hours they worked over 40 each week. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid
work performed by them before clocking in each day.
The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt CSR,
brings this complaint as a class and collective action complaint on
her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
employees who have been adversely affected by the Defendant's
unlawful act. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages,
liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements,
and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Alorica, Inc. is a customer service outsourcing company that
operates call centers throughout the U.S., including a call center
in Niles, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East Ninth St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: (216) 230-2955
E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, 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@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
ALTITUDE GROUP: Carango Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Altitude Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Carango, Fred Heidarpour, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The Altitude Group, LLC doing business as: Core Home Security, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 9:21-cv-80148-DMM
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Core Home Security -- https://corehomesecurity.com/ -- is one of
the top rated home security systems and monitoring companies in the
nation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Scott Shipp, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RYAN S. SHIPP
814 W. Lantana Road, Suite 1
Lantana, FL 33462
Phone: (561) 699-0399
Email: ryan@shipplawoffice.com
ARKEMA INC: 5th Cir. Vacates Class Certification on Explosion Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Fifth Circuit has vacated class
certification for a group of property owners suing Arkema Inc. over
an explosion and chemical release that took place during 2017's
Hurricane Harvey, holding more evaluation is needed to determine
whether the claims can be effectively addressed in a class action.
[GN]
ASHNA INC: Website Lacks Accessibility Information, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASHNA INC., Defendant, Case No. 21GDCV00094
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Comfort Inn
Monterey Park - Los Angeles on its reservation Wwebsite,
https://www.choicehotels.com/california/monterey-park/comfort-innhotels/ca692,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Ashna Inc. is an owner and operator of the Comfort Inn Monterey
Park - Los Angeles located at 588 S. Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 29 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 Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased AstraZeneca PLC
(NASDAQ: AZN) American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between May 21,
2020 and November 20, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until March 29, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in
the world and was one of the early front-runners in the race to
develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April 2020, the Company partnered
with Oxford University to develop a potential recombinant
adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later dubbed AZD1222.
On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the
results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222.
The announcement immediately began to raise questions among
analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the
interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate
locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained
reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial
provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose,
while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively,
AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially
more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full
dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.
In the days that followed, additional revelations were made
regarding problems with AstraZeneca's AZD1222 clinical trials. For
example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a
manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the
half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55
– despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable
to COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their
second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated
that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in
its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient
for approval for commercial sale in the United States.
As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed
problems and flaws in AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222,
the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on
November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading days in response
to adverse news.
The complaint, filed on July 26, 2021, alleges that defendants
misrepresented facts regarding the Company's ongoing AZD1222
clinical trials and concealed problems that had arisen in the
trials, including a dosing error which had been discovered early on
by the Company but not disclosed to investors.
If you purchased AstraZeneca ADSs during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, 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, California, and South Carolina. 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. [GN]
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Labaton Sucharow Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN) between May 21, 2020
and November 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for AstraZeneca investors under the
federal securities laws.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) initial clinical trials for AZD1222, the Company's
coronavirus vaccine hopeful, had suffered from a critical
manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial
participants receiving half the designed dosage; (2) clinical
trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient
subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the
validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the
clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (3)
certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a
second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the
second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled
to be delivered according to the original trial design; (4)
AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients
over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite
this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the
effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the
drug; (5) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been
hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a
failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory
authorities and the general public; (6) as a result of the
foregoing, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted
in accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards
and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the
clinical trials was of limited utility; and (7) as a result of the
foregoing, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial use
in the United States in the short term, one of the largest
potential markets for the drug.
If you currently own shares of AstraZeneca and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please contact David J. Schwartz using the toll-free number (800)
321-0476 or via email at dschwartz@labaton.com
About the Firm
Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com.
CONTACT: David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
dschwartz@labaton.com [GN]
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of March 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, announces the filing of a federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of AstraZeneca plc
("AstraZeneca" or "Company") (NASDAQ: AZN) from May 21, 2020 to
November 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
alleges violations of federal securities laws.
AstraZeneca is a multinational company headquartered in Cambridge,
England. AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical
companies in the world with a history of discovering and developing
therapies for oncological, cardiovascular, and respiratory
disorders. Over the past year, AstraZeneca has drawn international
attention for its role in the development of a COVID-19 vaccine,
AZD1222.
The Complaint alleges AstraZeneca made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and
operational policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements by failing to disclose that: (1) initial
clinical trials for AZD1222 suffered from a critical manufacturing
error; (2) further clinical trials for AZD1222 made use of
disparate patient subgroups given different types of treatments;
(3) certain trial participants for AZD1222 were incorrectly
administered their treatments during trials; (4) AstraZeneca failed
to include a substantial number of patients over 55 years of age in
its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite this patient population
being particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19; (5) as a
result of these flaws in the design and execution of clinical
trials for AZD1222, AstraZeneca has undermined the legitimacy of
the findings from those trials; and (6) as a result, Defendant's
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than March 29, 2021. Any member of
the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through
counsel of their choice.
If you have suffered a net loss from investment in AstraZeneca's
common stock from May 21, 2020 to November 20, 2020, you may obtain
additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to
become a Lead Plaintiff by contacting Christian Levis at
clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is
titled Monroe County Employees' Retirement System v. Astrazeneca
PLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00722 (S.D.N.Y.).
About Lowey
Dannenberg
Lowey Dannenberg is a national firm representing institutional and
individual investors, who suffered financial losses resulting from
corporate fraud and malfeasance in violation of federal securities
and antitrust laws. The firm has significant experience in
prosecuting multi-million-dollar lawsuits and has previously
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of investors. [GN]
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of March 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against AstraZeneca
PLC ("AstraZeneca" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AZN) 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 May 21,
2020 and November 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 27, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2YxBzyK to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AstraZeneca's initial clinical trials for
its COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, suffered from manufacturing errors.
The validity and import of the Company's clinical trials for
AZD1222 were damaged by a patchwork of differentiated patient
subgroups, each with subtly different treatments. Some trial
participants did not receive a second dose of the vaccine candidate
at the designated time, in some cases receiving them weeks later.
The Company failed to include a substantial sample of patients aged
over 55, despite this population being a high priority for
vaccination. The Company's clinical trials were generally damaged
by widespread design errors and flawed execution. 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 AstraZeneca, 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.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210128005683/en/ [GN]
BAY RIDGE: Friedlander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Ridge Building
Consultant Inc. The case is styled as Adam Friedlander,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bay
Ridge Building Consultant Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00644 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Bay Ridge Building Consultant Inc. --
https://www.bayridgebuildingconsultantinc.com/ -- is an engineering
consultancy and drafting company based in New York City that
provides solutions for architectural, engineering, and
construction-related projects to meet the needs of architects,
engineers, general contractors, sub-contractors, and
developers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
BEST WESTERN: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST WESTERN NORWALK INN, LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21NWCV00045 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Best Western
Norwalk Inn on its reservation Website,
https://www.bestwestern.com/en_US/book/hotels-in-norwalk/bestwestern-norwalk-inn/propertyCode.05402.html,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability.
Best Western Norwalk Inn, LLC is an owner and operator of the Best
Western Norwalk Inn located at 10902 Firestone Blvd., Norwalk,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
BIT DIGITAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BTBT). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.
Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT)
Class Period: December 21, 2020 to January 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
Bit Digital is a holding company that purports to engage in the
bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned subsidiaries in
U.S. and Hong Kong.
On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research issued a research report
alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital operates "a fake
crypto currency business" "designed to steal funds from investors."
Though the Company claims "it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners
in China," J Capital alleged that "is simply not possible" and
stated that "[w]e verified with local governments supposedly
hosting the BTBT mining operation that there are no bitcoin miners
there."
On this news, Bit Digital's stock price fell $6.27 per share, or
25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021.
The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, 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
Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining
operation; and (2) 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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
BIT DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT) ("Bit Digital") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired Bit Digital securities between December
21, 2020 and January 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Bit Digital
securities during the Class Period may, no later than March 22,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/bit-digital-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=bit%20digital#overview
According to the complaint, Bit Digital is a holding company that
engages in the bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned
subsidiaries in the United States and Hong Kong.
The Class Period commences on December 21, 2020 when Bit Digital
announced its revised third quarter 2020 financial results in a
press release.
On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research ("J Capital") issued a
research report alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital
operates "a fake crypto currency business . . . designed to steal
funds from investors." Though Bit Digital claims "it was operating
22,869 bitcoin miners in China," J Capital alleged that "is simply
not possible" and stated that "[w]e verified with local governments
supposedly hosting the BTBT mining operation that there are no
bitcoin miners there."
Following this news, Bit Digital's stock price fell $6.27 per
share, or 25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Bit Digital
overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) as
a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements
about Bit Digital's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Bit Digital investors may, no later than March 22, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a 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. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
BIT DIGITAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Bit Digital, Inc. ("Bit Digital" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BTBT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-00721, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bit Digital securities between December 21, 2020
and January 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Bit Digital securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 22, 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.
[Click https://bit.ly/3arYzV9 for information about joining the
class action]
Bit Digital is a holding company that purports to engage in the
bitcoin mining business through its wholly-owned subsidiaries in
the U.S. and Hong Kong.
The Complaint 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,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Bit Digital overstated the extent of its
bitcoin mining operation; and (ii) 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.
On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research issued a research report
alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital operates "a fake
crypto currency business" "designed to steal funds from investors."
Though the Company claims "it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners
in China," J Capital alleged that "is simply not possible" and
stated that "[w]e verified with local governments supposedly
hosting the BTBT mining operation that there are no bitcoin miners
there."
On this news, Bit Digital's ordinary share price fell $6.27 per
share, or 25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
BOLD TRANSPORTATION: Misclassifies Yar Hostlers, Roggenkamp Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD ROGGENKAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOLD TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02036 (D. Kan., January 22, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid yard
hostler, who operates a "hostler tractor."
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant improperly classified him
and other yard hostlers as exempt employees under the FLSA. Despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and
Class members were not compensated by the Defendant at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over
40 in a workweek. In addition, their regularly received
non-discretionary bonuses were not included by the Defendant in
their regular rate of pay when computing their overtime
compensation.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to accurately record time worked by
its yard hostlers, and failed to provide them with accurate wage
statements.
Bold Transportation, Inc. provides transportation services, such as
over-the-road trucking, intermodal service, drayage service,
logistics and warehousing in the Kansas City metropolitan area.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mike Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Tel: (816) 600-0117
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
- and –
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Tel: (816) 875-3332
E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
btheoenen@hkm.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston
Scientific" or "BSX" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX) and certain of
its executives.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated 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, and is brought by plaintiff on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of Boston
Scientific during the period April 24, 2019 through November 16,
2020, inclusive ("Class Period").
If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than February 2, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
proposed Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com). Our firm, with offices in New York, Oakland,
Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving violations
of the Federal securities laws.
If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please visit our website (www.kaplanfox.com) or e-mail attorneys
Jeff Campisi (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com), or Larry King
(lking@kaplanfox.com), or contact them by phone, regular mail, or
fax:
Jeffrey P. Campisi
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 329-8571
Fax: (212) 687-7714
E-mail address: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4704
Fax: (415) 772-4709
E-mail address: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]
CANADA: Faces Prison Staff Suit Over Racist Work Environments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna McMillan at Global News reports that a proposed class-action
lawsuit says Canadian prison staff are subjected to racist work
environments.
The lawsuit against the federal government alleges the Correctional
Service of Canada (CSC) infringes on the constitutional rights of
racialized employees.
"CSC management and staff treat racialized staff as though they are
inmates, and not like equals," says the statement of claim, filed
on Jan. 11.
"It is an 'us versus them' mentality, and racialized CSC staff
members are on the outside."
The suit alleges racism is systemic in CSC facilities across
Canada. None of the allegations have been proven in court.
CSC would not comment on the lawsuit because it's before the
courts, but said it takes racism seriously.
"Racism and discrimination have absolutely no place in our society,
inside or outside of CSC," spokesperson Kyle Lawlor said in an
emailed statement to Global News.
"CSC does not tolerate these behaviours and is committed to
providing a workplace that is healthy, supportive and free of
harassment and discrimination."
The proposed class-action intends to include all current and
previous racialized CSC staff, including the plaintiffs, former
corrections officers Jennifer Sanderson, 44, and Jennifer Constant,
46.
Since filing the suit, the law firm has been contacted by many
potential class members, said the plaintiffs' Vancouver-based
lawyer, Aden Klein.
"It seems that the racism is so widespread that there are a
countless number of people that are affected," Klein told Global
News.
The court must certify the case as a class action if it is to
proceed.
'It's residential school'
Former corrections officer Sanderson, a member of Wahpeton Dakota
Nation, worked in the maximum-security unit at the Saskatchewan
Penitentiary in Prince Albert from 2009 to 2017.
"Her time with the CSC was marred by repeated and persistent racist
episodes and a culture of racism, which went unchanged even when
she was brave enough to complain to CSC management," the statement
of claim says.
It alleges corrections staff asked Sanderson ignorant questions,
including, "How come you aren't a drunk?" and, "Why don't you wear
feathers to work?"
In 2016, a colleague allegedly told Sanderson, "It's shirtless," to
which a higher-ranking officer responded, "No, it's residential
school at the prison."
Sanderson said complaints to management were dismissed. Eventually,
she resigned.
"My mental health was suffering and I asked for help," Sanderson
told Global News.
"I got nothing, and I left there in worse shape than when I went
in. I felt so completely at a loss."
'Malicious, vindictive and willful'
Constant, a member of the Deh Gah Gotie Dene band, was a
corrections officer at the Edmonton Institution maximum security
prison from 2011 to 2016, then became an Indigenous liaison
officer. Constant said she's on a leave of absence, but won't be
coming back.
"Ms. Constant witnessed, experienced and endured from CSC
management and staff racism, discrimination, and verbal and abusive
behaviors that were malicious, vindictive and willful," the suit
alleges.
It says white colleagues climbed the ranks, but despite working
hard, Constant wasn't considered for promotion. She alleges one of
her colleagues falsely claimed to be Indigenous, and was promoted
to an Indigenous correctional program position.
"We have a lot of educated, … knowledgeable and experienced
people out there," Constant said in an interview.
"I don't understand why (CSC) continues to hire all these people
that are claiming to be Indigenous just to obtain these jobs."
CSC committed to addressing racism
The CSC has roughly 18,000 employees and manages 43 institutions
across Canada, according to its website.
"The mistreatment of prisoners in Canada's penitentiaries is well
known," the court document says. "In contrast, the abuses within
the CSC's own ranks have been largely hidden."
Fostering inclusive work environments is a top priority, CSC said.
It implemented a workplace wellness strategy last fall and is
strengthening its process for complaints about harassment,
discrimination and violence, Lawlor said.
"We are also working to build greater diversity in our leadership
positions and have mandatory training in place for employees on
diversity and cultural competency to build more inclusion and
equity in everything we do," he says.
In July, CSC and the Parole Board of Canada created a working group
to explore racism in corrections, Lawlor said. The group reviewed
CSC policies and programs that address the needs of racialized
inmates, he said, as well as those intended to increase workplace
diversity.
"To build on this work, we are in the process of developing an
anti-racism framework and action plan," he said.
"We are resolute in our commitment to addressing systemic racism."
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
"The plaintiffs and class members have suffered serious
infringement of their constitutional rights to equality, as well as
serious physical and psychological damages, out-of-pocket expenses
and loss of income," the claim says.
The two Indigenous women said they hope the case encourages
systemic change, including overhauls to CSC policies, management
and the complaint process.
"(The system) is failing the people hugely," Sanderson said, "and
it has been for decades." [GN]
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Announces Restructuring Support Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
CannTrust Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust" or the "Company") (unlisted)
announced that it has entered into a Restructuring Support
Agreement ("RSA") with plaintiffs who have commenced litigation in
Canada and the United States (the "Securities Claims") asserting
claims against CannTrust and others on behalf of a global class of
CannTrust shareholders (together, the "Securities Claimants") and
their legal counsel. The RSA provides a comprehensive framework for
settling the Securities Claims under a Court-approved plan of
compromise, arrangement and reorganization ("Plan of Arrangement")
pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada)
("CCAA").
"Today's announcement represents a significant milestone towards
the resolution of substantially all of the civil litigation claims
that were filed against CannTrust following the Company's
non-compliance with certain Health Canada regulations," said Greg
Guyatt, Chief Executive Officer at CannTrust. "Although much work
remains to conclude the matters contemplated by the RSA, I am
pleased that, in addition to relaunching our medical and
recreational businesses, we are also making further tangible
progress to exit from the CCAA and put CannTrust in a position to
be a successful player in the cannabis industry."
The RSA contemplates that the Securities Claims will be settled as
part of a broader restructuring of the Company and its subsidiaries
pursuant to a Plan of Arrangement that will be completed under the
CCAA. Implementation of the Plan of Arrangement will be subject to
several conditions, including negotiation of mutually satisfactory
definitive documentation and approval of the Plan of Arrangement by
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the
"Ontario Court") in the CCAA proceedings. The RSA requires the
parties to negotiate in good faith to finalize the terms of
definitive agreements and the Plan of Arrangement on terms
consistent with the terms of the RSA and to cooperate in good faith
during the mediation ordered by the Ontario Court on May 8, 2020
(the "Mediation"). In addition, the RSA requires the other parties
to cooperate with CannTrust to pursue and support the settlement of
the Securities Claims in the manner contemplated by the RSA.
The RSA also contemplates the resolution, pursuant to the Plan of
Arrangement, of all claims against CannTrust and certain other
defendants in the Securities Claims, including Greg Guyatt, Mark
Dawber, John Kaden, Robert Marcovitch, Shawna Page, Mitchell
Sanders and Cajun Capital Corporation. Upon the implementation of
the Plan of Arrangement, CannTrust will, among other things, pay
CAD $50 million into a trust that will be established for the
benefit of the Securities Claimants. The RSA permits other
defendants to elect to join in the settlement of the Securities
Claims pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement, subject to certain
conditions.
The Company stated that its cash position at January 19, 2021 was
approximately CAD $78 million.
CannTrust also expressed its appreciation for the tireless efforts
and wise counsel provided to all parties to the RSA by retired
Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, Dennis O'Connor, OC, OOnt, who
has supervised the Mediation.
CannTrust remains under CCAA protection to facilitate its efforts
to resolve its civil litigation claims and complete its review of
strategic alternatives, which includes a review of financing
options. Aspects of the ongoing efforts remain confidential, and
the Company is unable to predict with any certainty either their
timing or outcome. In the meantime, the reinstatement of its
cannabis licenses and the restoration of its ongoing operations,
CannTrust's re-entry into the Canadian recreational and medical
cannabis business segments and its entry into the RSA are essential
to the Company's focus on rebuilding its franchise. For more
information about CannTrust's CCAA proceedings, please visit:
www.ey.com/ca/canntrust.
About CannTrust
CannTrust is a federally regulated licensed cannabis producer. We
are proudly Canadian, operating a portfolio of brands including
estora, Liiv and Synr.g, specifically designed to surprise and
delight patients and consumers.
At CannTrust, we are committed to providing an exceptional customer
experience, as well as consistent and quality products through
standardized processes. Our greenhouse produces Grade A cannabis
flower, which is currently sold in dried flower, oil drops and
capsule formats. Founded in 2013, our continued success in the
medical cannabis market and subsequent expansion into the
recreational business, led to us being named Licensed Producer of
the Year at the Canadian Cannabis Awards 2018. [GN]
CD PROJEKT: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of CD
Projekt S.A. ("CD Projekt" or the "Company") (OTC BB: OTGLF, OTGLY)
from January 16, 2020 through December 17, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased CD Projekt securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit CD Projekt S.A.
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
On December 14, 2020, facing criticisms for delivering an
unplayable, bug-ridden product on the current generation video game
consoles the Company held a conference call. Following the
conference call the Company's ADRs fell from its close of $27.68 on
December 9, 2020 to close at $20.75 on December 14, 2020, a drop of
$6.93 or 25% over 3 trading days, damaging investors. Over that
same period, CD Projekt's common share price fell $21.65 per share,
or 20.1% to close at $86.00 on December 14, 2020, damaging
investors.
Then, on December 18, 2020, Sony issued a statement via the
Playstation website that it would "offer a full refund for all
gamers who have purchased Cyberpunk 2077 via PlayStation Store" and
"be removing Cyberpunk 2077 from Playstation Store until further
notice." Microsoft also announced that it would offer refunds for
the game.
On this news, CD Projekt's ADR price fell $3.44 per share, or 15.8%
to close at 18.40 per ADR on December 18, 2020, damaging investors.
CD Projekt's common share price fell $9.20 per share, or 10.45% to
close at $78.80 on December 18, 2020, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased CD Projekt securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cdprojektsa-otglf-otgly-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-350/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
CHAOYANG TIANMA: Website Lacks Access Features' Info, Garcia Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHAOYANG TIANMA ENTERPRISE (GROUP) CORP. and
DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 21GDCV00103 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 25, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Travelodge by
Wyndham on its reservation Website,
https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/travelodge/pasadenacalifornia/travelodge-pasadena-central/overview,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability.
Chaoyang Tianma Enterprise (Group) Corp. is an owner and operator
of the Travelodge by Wyndham located at 2131 East Colorado Blvd.,
Pasadena, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Seeks Dismissal of Charity Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit
accusing Charles Schwab & Co.'s $15 billion charitable investing
platform of steering money earmarked for charity into high-fee
proprietary mutual funds should be dismissed because the company's
charitable customers no longer own their donations and thus lack
standing to challenge how they're managed, the company told a
California federal judge.
Philip Pinkert, who in 2020 filed a proposed class action
challenging how Schwab Charitable Fund manages its donor advised
funds, relinquished ownership and control over the money he donated
through the platform, Schwab Charitable said in a motion to dismiss
filed Jan. 22 in the U.S. District Court. [GN]
CHEMICAL AND MINING: April 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement
regarding the Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Securities
Settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02106-ER-GWG
(Consolidated)
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
MEGAN VILLELLA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintif,
vs.
CHEMICAL AND MINING COMPANY OF CHILE INC., et al.
Defendants.
TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED CHEMICAL AND MINING COMPANY OF CHILE
INC., A/K/A SOCIEDAD QUÍMICA Y MINERA DE CHILE S.A. ("SQM")
AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSS") DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JUNE
30, 2010 AND MARCH 18, 2015, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS
MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 2,
2021, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Edgardo Ramos at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY, 10007 to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for
$62,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay
Lead Plaintiff for its costs and expenses in representing the Class
out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the
Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate.
The recent outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a fluid
situation that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to
conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference,
or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone
or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. In
order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement
Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may
participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the
Court's docket and the Settlement website,
www.SQMSecuritiesSettlement. com, before making any plans to attend
the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement
Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing
or updates regarding in-person, telephonic or videoconference
appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to the Settlement
website, www.SQMSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the phone number for
accessing the telephonic conference or the website for accessing
the videoconference will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.SQMSecuritiesSettlement.com.
IF YOU PURCHASED SQM ADSs BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2010 THROUGH MARCH 18,
2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than April 8,
2021) or electronically (no later than April 8, 2021). Your failure
to submit your Proof of Claim by April 8, 2021 will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you
purchased SQM ADSs between June 30, 2010 through March 18, 2015,
inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be
bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.SQMSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing
to:
SQM Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43327
Providence, RI 02940-3327
Inquiries should NOT be directed to SQM, the Court, or the Clerk of
the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MARCH 12, 2021,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS
WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT TIMELY SUBMIT A
PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD PLAINTIFF'S
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 17.5% OF THE
$62,500,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED
$1,400,000, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO LEAD PLAINTIFF FOR ITS COSTS AND
EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $20,000. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH
THE COURT AND RECEIVED BY LEAD COUNSEL AND SQM'S COUNSEL BY MARCH
12, 2021 IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: December 18, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHINA: Refuses to Accept Service of Berman's COVID-19 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
China's Ministry of Justice has notified the Plaintiffs that it is
refusing to serve any of the defendants in the country's
first-filed class action related to China's role in the COVID
pandemic. The lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Ministry claims
that serving the lawsuit on the defendants, including the Communist
Party of China and the lab allegedly responsible for harboring the
virus, would infringe China's sovereign immunity and security.
"The fact that China cites their 'security' as a reason for denying
that U.S. courts have jurisdiction for this lawsuit is particularly
rich considering the abhorrent acts alleged in the complaint," said
Matthew Moore, lead attorney for Berman Law Group.
The First Amended Complaint, filed in May 2020, alleges that
China's Communist Party, through its various ministries, silenced
those who tried to warn the world of the virus outbreak that became
known as COVID-19 before it became a pandemic. It further alleges
that these efforts resulted in a failure to warn and contain that
caused COVID-19's unprecedented, direct impacts on U.S. citizens
and businesses, and therefore sovereign immunity does not apply.
Berman Law Group remains committed to the lawsuit and proving
China's responsibility. Under the international Hague Convention
and established U.S. law, Plaintiffs may now seek a default
judgment against the defendants. In December, the lawsuit was
transferred to newly appointed federal judge, the Honorable Aileen
M. Cannon, and Plaintiffs look forward to demonstrating that
sovereign immunity does not apply here.
"The lawsuit demands that China be accountable and pay for what
they have done, and that China can afford to pay," said Moore. "It
is well settled that U.S. federal courts can establish jurisdiction
over foreign assets held in the United States."
The lawsuit is Alters v. The People's Republic of China, case
number 20-cv-21108-AMC.
Learn more about the lawsuit at demandchinapay.org.
About Berman Law Group
Established in 2008, Berman Law Group has expanded to become a
national law firm with numerous offices in Florida and across the
U.S., after quickly garnering a well-deserved reputation as an
indefatigable and fearless defender of its clients' rights and
social justice. The firm is headquartered in Boca Raton and has
four other offices in Florida, as well as offices in New York City,
Atlanta, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. For additional
information see: https://www.bermanlawgroup.com/. [GN]
CLEANSPARK INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Jan 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased
CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK) securities between December 31,
2020 and January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until March 22, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
CleanSpark provides advanced software and controls technology
solutions, including end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy
market communications, and energy management solutions.
On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of
its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that
it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.63, or 9%, to close
at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging
investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session
by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on
January 15, 2021.
The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, 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 had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2)
that several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved
undisclosed related party transactions; 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.
If you purchased CleanSpark 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, California, and South Carolina. 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]
CLEANSPARK INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK)
securities between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Bishins v.
CleanSpark, Inc., No. 21-cv-00511, and is assigned to Judge Loretta
A. Preska. The CleanSpark class action lawsuit charges CleanSpark
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 CleanSpark securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the CleanSpark
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 CleanSpark class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
CleanSpark class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the CleanSpark class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the CleanSpark class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
CleanSpark class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the CleanSpark
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than
March 22, 2021.
CleanSpark provides software and controls technology solutions,
including end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy market
communications, and energy management solutions.
The CleanSpark class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that CleanSpark had overstated its
customer and contract figures; (2) that several of CleanSpark's
recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party
transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about CleanSpark's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of
its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that
it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions." On this
news, CleanSpark's share price fell 9%, damaging investors.
CleanSpark's stock price continued its decline the next trading
session, falling by an additional 13%, further damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CLEANSPARK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 25 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CLSK) 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 December
31, 2020 and January 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 22, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. CleanSpark overstated multiple aspects of
its business, including its customer list and contract details. The
Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions in
multiple recent acquisitions. 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
CleanSpark, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- 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]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY: Heidger Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MELANIE HEIDGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. 20SL-CC06081, was removed from the Missouri
Circuit Court of St. Louis County to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on January 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00099-JAR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged misleading, false, and
deceptive marketing of the LSS Invisible Dry Antiperspirant in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer
products company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa A. Pake, Esq.
Matthew A. Martin, Esq.
HAAR & WOODS, LLP
1010 Market St., Suite 1620
St. Louis, MI 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-2224
Facsimile: (314) 241-2227
E-mail: lpake@haar-woods.com
mmartin@haar-woods.com
- and –
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Telephone: (312) 222-9350
Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com
- and –
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
COMERCIA BANK: El-Hage Appeals E.D. Mich. Ruling to 6th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Abass El-Hage filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled ABASS EL-HAGE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMERICA BANK and ELAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10294, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 28,
2020, Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan:
(i) granted Elan Financial's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration on an Individual Basis;
(ii) granted Comerica's request to compel arbitration as a
nonsignatory in its Response in Support of Elan Financial
Services' Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration; and
(iii) dismissed as moot Comerica's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration under the Deposit Account Contract.
Plaintiff El-Hage alleges that Comerica Bank and its servicer Elan
Financial enrolled customers in an overdraft protection program
without their consent in order to charge higher fees and interest
rates. El-Hage opened a checking account with Comerica in 2007 and
then a Visa Platinum credit card in 2017. Elan Financial was the
servicer for the credit card.
Mr. El-Hage alleges that when he opened the credit card, his
Cardmember Agreement stated that overdraft protection must be
"specifically requested," but he was enrolled despite never
requesting the service. He further alleges that the overdraft
protection is not protective at all. Additionally, El-Hage alleges,
the overdraft protection service rounds up to the nearest $100 to
transfer funds. On top of this, El-Hage alleges, the Defendants
automatically enroll customers to pay their monthly credit card
bill with their associated checking account.
Mr. El-Hage brings suit against Comerica and Elan Financial on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, asserting violation of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act, Michigan Compiled Laws Section 445.901,
breach of contract, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. He
seeks certification of a Michigan class for the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act claim and certification of a nationwide class for
the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.
Mr. El-Hage is seeking an appeal to review the said court's order
by Judge Michelson.
The appellate case is captioned as Abass El-Hage v. Comercia Bank,
et al., Case No. 21-1073, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, January 22, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ABASS EL-HAGE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ali H. Koussan, Esq.
Koussan Hamood PLC
23400 Michigan Avenue, Suite P36
Dearborn, MI 48128
Telephone: (313) 355-0003
E-mail: ali@kh-plc.com
Defendants-Appellees COMERCIA BANK and ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES are
represented by:
David F. Wells, Esq.
STANCATO TRAGGE WELLS
Two Towne Square, Suite 825
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 351-9779
E-mail: dwells@stwlawfirm.com
- and -
John Joseph Rolecki, Esq.
VARNUM, LLP
333 Bridge Street, N.W., Suite 1700
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
Telephone: (616) 336-6000
E-mail: jjrolecki@varnumlaw.com
- and -
Eric R. Sherman, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY
50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 340-2600
E-mail: sherman.eric@dorsey.com
CONAIR CORPORATION: Gonsalves Sues Over Defective Toaster Ovens
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GONSALVES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONAIR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-00138 (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of implied
warranty, strict product liability, fraudulent concealment, and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California
Unfair Competition Law, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, design, and
distribution of a defective kitchen appliance named the Cuisinart
Digital AirFryer Toaster Ovens Model Number TOA-65. The AirFryer
does not include proper or sufficient shielding to prevent burn
damage to nearby surfaces despite full compliance by the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers with the Before First Use
directions and installation of the Quick Reference Guide. The
product emanates excessive heat behind and on top of the unit,
causing damage to the area where it is operated and to the owners
themselves. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations of
the product, consumers and their property have been damaged due to
the machines' excessive external heat, the suit alleges.
Conair Corporation is a manufacturer of kitchen appliances with its
principal place of business at 150 Milford Road, East Windsor, New
Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert M. Beggs, Esq.
THE BEGGS LAW FIRM, APC
3151 Airway Ave., S-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 878-3773
Facsimile: (949) 608-1741
E-mail: robert@thebeggslawfirm.com
- and –
Richard A. Crites, Esq.
THE CRITES LAW FIRM
1201 Puerta Del Sol, Ste. 310
San Clemente, CA 92673
Telephone: (949) 940-8028
Facsimile: (866) 562-4432
E-mail: richard@crites-law.com
CORVIAS: Lawyers File More Motions Asking to Drop Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Riley at fayobserver.com reports that a U.S. district court
judge has been asked to consider a request from Fort Bragg's
housing provider Corvias to drop class action allegations from a
suit filed on behalf of Fort Bragg families.
In a proposed order entered into court records Jan. 20, attorneys
for the defendants are asking Judge James Dever III to dismiss the
case based on requirements for class certification Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, which requires the plaintiffs to show that the
defendants refused to act on grounds that apply "generally to the
class" so that final relief "is appropriate respecting the class as
a whole."
The military families are seeking class-action damages exceeding $5
million.
The military families in the case making the complaint include
Staff Sgt. Shane Page and his wife, Brittany Page; Spc. Spenser
Ganske and his wife, Emily Ganske; Sgt. 1st Class Christopher
Wilkies and his wife, Ashley Wilkies; and Cpl. Timothy Murphy and
his wife, Katelyn Murphy.
"Our fight for military families continues, and our clients look
forward to their day in court," said Mona Lisa Wallace of the
Salisbury-based Wallace and Graham law firm that is helping to
represent the families in the case. "We believe that military
families are heroes, and there is no excuse for substandard housing
provided by private for-profit companies.'
A photo in a Fort Bragg housing complaint shows where a ceiling
collapsed in a home in December 2019.
The defendants include Corvias Group LLC; Bragg Communities LLC;
Corvias Management-Army LLC; Bragg-Picerne Partners LLC; Corvias
Military Living LLC; and Corvias Construction.
Their complaint filed on behalf of the military families alleges
the defendants "conspired to conceal harmful environmental and
structural housing defects from unsuspecting service members and
their families and failed to comply with applicable building and
housing codes."
The complaint continued to allege that the defendants "knowingly
leased substandard homes" while "charging grossly excessive rents
swallowing up the whole of servicemembers' basic allowance for
housing."
In a legal motion, attorneys for the defendants said determining
individual claims would require the court to look at the issues at
each home to determine what maintenance issues existed, what caused
the issues, how long the issues existed, whether the issues
affected the home's habitability if repair work fixed the issues
and whether each class member "suffered any damages."
Corvias's attorneys wrote that the plaintiffs are making a series
of claims "for diverse and distinct maintenance issues," which
attorneys said cannot be answered without individual inquiries of
the "unique circumstance" at each of the residents; houses when
they lived there.
In a legal motion, attorneys for the defendants said determining
individual claims would require the court to look at the issues at
each home to determine what maintenance issues existed, what caused
the issues, how long the issues existed, whether the issues
affected the home's habitability if repair work fixed the issues
and whether each class member "suffered any damages."
Corvias's attorneys wrote that the plaintiffs are making a series
of claims "for diverse and distinct maintenance issues," which
attorneys said cannot be answered without individual inquiries of
the "unique circumstance" at each of the residents; houses when
they lived there.
The attorneys denied claims that the plaintiffs engaged in
"deceptive conduct" by allegedly counseling or deleting maintenance
records and said the plaintiffs would have to prove how they "were
damaged" as a result of the allegations.
Responding to claims that vendors were told not to use the word
"mold" around residents when making house repairs, attorneys said
that claim is an "inflammatory allegation" that would require the
court to conduct a "fact-extensive inquiry" to determine whether
each class member relied on the alleged statements "to his or her
detriment."
In an Oct. 30 motion seeking to dismiss the case, attorneys for the
defendants wrote that the military families each alleged a series
of individual landlord-tenant complaints.
"Such claims require individualized proof," the attorneys said.
"This does not diminish the seriousness of their claims, but it
does mean that they will need to prosecute their claims on an
individual basis, rather than a class action."
Attorneys for the military families filed earlier motions pointing
to congressional hearings and Government Accountability Office
reports about substandard military housing.
"A judicial remedy is further appropriate given as that, to date,
legislative remedies have only sought to reform privatized housing
practices prospectively, without making any provision for
compensating servicemembers."
Staff writer Rachael Riley can be reached at rriley@fayobsrever.com
or 910-486-3528. [GN]
COTTER CORP: Eight Circuit Appeal Filed in Banks Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Cotter Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Banks, et al. v. Cotter Corporation
et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01227-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on April 2,
2018, Plaintiff filed her amended class action petition in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County. The Plaintiff alleges that, as a
result of the Defendants' collective conduct over several decades,
radioactive materials were released into the environment in and
around Coldwater Creek, a tributary of the Missouri River that runs
throughout North St. Louis County, resulting in the radioactive
contamination of Plaintiff's and class members' property and
leading to various forms of property damage.
Defendant Cotter Corp. is seeking an appeal to review the Court's
Order dated December 22, 2021, granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever
and Remand All Non-Third Party Claims. Under the said order,
Cotter's claim for contribution against Defendant Mallinckroft LLC
in its Third-Party Petition is hereby SEVERED, and all other claims
in this case are REMANDED back to the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County for further proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned as Tamia Banks, et al. v. Cotter
Corporation, Case No. 21-1165, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, January 22, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on March 3, 2021;
-- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Cotter Corporation is due on March 3,
2021; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Tamia Banks, Ronnie Hooks, Joel Hogan, Kenneth
Niebling, Kendall Lacy, Tanja Lacy, Willie Clay, Bobbie Jean Clay,
Angela Statum, and Missouri Rentals Company, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
David Roy Barney, Jr.
THOMPSON & BARNEY
2030 Kanawha Boulevard, E.
300 East Pedro Simmons Drive
Charleston, WV 25311
Telephone: (303) 343-4401
E-mail: drbarneywv@gmail.com
- and -
Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
Victor T. Cobb, Esq.
COOPER LAW FIRM
1525 Religious Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 399-0009
E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
- and -
Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 361-8834
E-mail: ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
Steven W. Duke, Esq.
Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
KEANE LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1600
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 391-4700
E-mail: steve@keanelawllc.com
- and -
Anthony D. Gray, Esq.
JOHNSON & GRAY
7710 Carondelet
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 385-9500
E-mail: agray@johnsongraylaw.com
Defendant-Appellant Cotter Corporation is represented by:
Lauren E. Jaffe, Esq.
Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq.
RILEY & SAFER
Three First National Plaza, Suite 2900
70 W. Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (614) 439-5680
E-mail: ljaffe@rshc-law.com
- and -
Jennifer R. Steeve, Esq.
RILEY & SAFER
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 440
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 359-5500
E-mail: jsteeve@rshc-law.com
- and -
Marcie J. Vantine, Esq.
SWANSON & MARTIN
800 Market Street, Suite 2100
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 421-7100
E-mail: mvantine@smbtrials.com
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Lombard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al. The case is styled as Lombard Hospitality Group
LLC (D/B/A Blue Light), Fredick 52 LLC (D/B/A Toy Soldier and Tin
Cactus), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
v. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL
BEVERAGE CONTROL, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE TREASURER & TAX
COLLECTOR, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC21589114 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 25, 2021).
The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."
San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco, --
https://sf.gov/ -- is a cultural, commercial, and financial center
of Northern California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
KABATECK, LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA
Phone: (213) 217-5000
(866) 266-1800 (TOLL FREE)
COVIA HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on
behalf of shareholders who purchased 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").
All investors who purchased shares of Covia Holdings 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 Covia Holdings
Corporation., you may, no later than February 8, 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 Covia Holdings Corporation.
According to the filed complaint, 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.
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.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Averts Data Breach Class Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. -- kristin.bryan@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that data breach litigations rarely make it to motions for
class certification. This trend makes each decision that does come
out addressing class certification in the data breach context that
much more interesting. Well, last week a federal court denied a
plaintiff's motion to certify a class in the wake of an employer
data breach that allegedly resulted in the disclosure of employees'
sensitive tax information and other data. Read on below.
First, the (alleged) facts. In McGlenn v. Driveline Retail Merch.,
Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9532 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021), a
plaintiff filed suit against her employer after the employer was
the victim of a phishing attack. That attack resulted in the
purported disclosure of current and former employees' personal and
tax information, including their names, addresses, zip codes, dates
of birth, wages and withholding information, and Social Security
numbers. Following disclosure of the data breach, the employer
offered employees 12 months of credit monitoring service (some
accepted the services, while others did not).
Plaintiff subsequently filed a putative class action complaint,
asserting various tort and state consumer protection claims under
Illinois law. She alleged generally that, as a result of the data
breach, criminals could file fraudulent tax returns, file for
unemployment benefits, and apply for a job using a false identity
due to disclosure of the class members' Social Security numbers.
And more specifically, Plaintiff alleged that: (1) following the
breach someone used her personally identifiable information ("PII")
to open a new credit card account and (2) she spent time mitigating
the issues arising out of the misuse of her personal information.
Besides seeking monetary damages, Plaintiff also sought an
injunction directing her employer to adequately safeguard the
personally identifiable information ("PII") of employees by
implementing improved security procedures and to provide enhanced
disclosures regarding the data breach.
A short refresher on procedure: To get certified, every federal
class action must satisfy not only the four prerequisites of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), but also one of the three
scenarios set forth Rule 23(b). In determining whether to certify a
class, a district court first assesses whether the putative class
meets Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality,
(3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. IF (and only
if) the class meets all these requirements, the court will then
assess whether one of the scenarios set forth in Rule 23(b) is
satisfied. Class certification matters as it raises the stakes in
litigation and can lead to damages awards (or settlements) and big
payouts for class counsel.
Back to the case at hand. Plaintiffs in McGlenn sought class
certification, primarily relying on Rule 23(b)(3). Under this rule,
a class seeking damages can be certified if (in addition to meeting
the Rule 23(a) criteria), the plaintiffs establish both
predominance (i.e., that questions common to class members
predominate over questions affecting individual ones) and
superiority (i.e., that the class action is the best way to
litigate the case). Plaintiffs sought to certify a class seeking
injunctive relief (in the form of enhanced security measures) under
Rule 23(b)(2). This one provides that an injunction-only class may
be certified if (in addition to meeting the Rule 23(a) thresholds),
the defendant "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class."
How did things shake out before the court? Class certification was
denied for several independent reasons:
* Commonality Absent Under Rule 23(a): The court held that the Rule
23(a) requirements for class certification were absent, as
Plaintiff could not show commonality under Rule 23(a). This was
because, the court explained, "[w]hile the Court recognizes that
Plaintiff has proven certain issues are common to the proposed
class, such as liability, the issues of causation and injury
require individual inquiry." Id. at *15.
* Certification Under Rule 23(b)(2) Inappropriate: The court also
found that certification of the proposed injunctive class was not
supported by Rule 23(b)(2). This was because, consistent with
Seventh Circuit precedent, Plaintiff could not show that "a
mandatory injunction would remedy the alleged harm." Because the
PII of the putative class had already been disclosed, enhanced
security measures and training would do nothing to remedy the
damages claimed by the class.
* Certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) Also Unsupported: Finally, the
court also found class certification inappropriate under Rule
23(b)(3). Plaintiff argued that "each putative class member
suffered damage and injury as a result of the [data breach] and
‘each suffered the same general type of damages -- loss of value
of PII, out of pocket monetary expenses, and other foreseeable
losses stemming from identify theft.'" Plaintiff asserted that this
could be shown on a class-wide basis through the use of expert
testimony. The court disagreed. Plaintiffs' expert did not "present
testimony that the putative class members sustained bank charges or
service reinstatement fees as a result of the [data breach],
suffered negative credit ratings, were denied a loan, sought public
assistance, were the victims of medical identity thefts, or had
their Social Security numbers used to file a fraudulent tax
return."
The court expressed doubt whether Plaintiff and other class members
have actually suffered any injury that was compensable (as most
merely claimed they were at risk of suffering speculative future
harm). And as a more fundamental matter, the court also noted
reservations that defendant (as an employer) owed the putative
class members any duty at all to protect their PII (the Seventh
Circuit has held that Illinois has not created a common law duty
between an employer and an employee to safeguard personal
information beyond providing notice of a disclosure).
So there you have it. Another day, another development in the
ever-changing landscape of data privacy litigation. It's a success
for employers/companies defending class actions that implicate
individual damages issues. [GN]
DUS SAMARTHA: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUS SAMARTHA REAL ESTATE LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21NWCV00046 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Epic Hotel on its
reservation Website, https://www.epichotelpicorivera.com/, for
people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Dus Samartha Real Estate LLC is an owner and operator of the Epic
Hotel located at 4335 Rosemead Blvd., Pico Rivera, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
ELEMENT MATERIALS: Flores Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Roger Flores, individually and on behalf of
allothers similarly situated v. Element Materials Technology
Huntington Beach LLC and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
18STCV10074, was removed from the Superior Court California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00275-DMG-E to the proceeding.
The case arises from alleged labor violations and is assigned to
Judge Dolly M. Gee.
Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC is an aerospace
company in Huntington Beach, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com
jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
khaque@aegislawfirm.com
swong@aegislawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher S. Cruz, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 732-6500
Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
E-mail: cruzc@gtlaw.com
- and -
Timothy J. Long, Esq.
Michael Alexander Wertheim, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
E-mail: longt@gtlaw.com
EMPIRE TWIN: Sargsyan Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARAM SARGSYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE TWIN PALMS, LLC; A1, A CA COMMERCIAL
CANNABIS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00122
(C.D. Cal., January 22, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking for statutory
damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants sent him numerous unwanted
and unauthorized telemarketing text messages to his cellular
telephone number ending in 2824 shortly thereafter he went to the
Empire Twin Palms dispensary on July 11, 2020 to purchase its
product. The Defendants' text messages constituted telemarketing
because they encourage the Plaintiff to purchase their cannabis
products and they advertised various promotions and discounts.
Moreover, the Defendants purportedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS) in transmitting its telemarketing text
messages without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive any telephonic or text message communication from the
Defendants, the suit says.
As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm upon
receiving the Defendant's unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing
text messages.
The Corporate Defendants offer cannabis products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
Eugene B. Frid, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 433-3900
Fax: (415) 433-3950
E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
efrid@ongaropc.com
- and –
Alex G. Tovarian, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALEX TOVARIAN
850 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94133
Tel: (415) 984-9990
Fax: (415) 520-5830
E-mail: alex@tovarianlaw.com
ERIE INSURANCE: High Tech Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HIGH TECH HAIR LLC, et al. v. ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02895, 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 January
12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00031-MRH to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged breach of insurance contract and
is assigned to Judge Mark R. Hornak.
Erie Insurance Exchange is a publicly held insurance company,
offering auto, home, commercial and life insurance through a
network of independent insurance agents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
REMINGER CO., LPA
1400 Midland Bdg
101 Prospect Avenue, West
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 430-2102
Facsimile: (216) 687-1841
E-mail: kabbarno@reminger.com
- and -
Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq.
Marni Berger, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
Samuel B. Dordick, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, 52nd Fl
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
E-mail: jgoodman@smbb.com
MBerger@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
rjmongeluzzi@smbb.com
SDordick@smbb.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristin A. Shepard, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F Street, NW
District of Columbia, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 239-3277
E-mail: kristin.shepard@alston.com
- and -
Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 210-9400
Facsimile: (212) 210-9444
E-mail: adam.kaiser@alston.com
- and -
Matthew Malamud, Esq.
Robert T. Horst, Esq.
TIMONEY KNOX LLP
400 Maryland Dr
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Telephone: (215) 646-6000
E-mail: mmalamud@timoneyknox.com
rhorst@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Robert M. Runyon, III, Esq.
NELSON LEVINE DE LUCA & HORST
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Telephone: (215) 358-5100
E-mail: rrunyon@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
1201 West Peachtree Street
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: (404) 881-4249
E-mail: tiffany.powers@alston.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Hutch & Associates Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hutch & Associates, Inc. (doing business as:
Hutch's Restaurant), Delaware Restaurant Holdings, LLC (doing
business as Remington Tavern & Seafood Exchange), for themselves
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders v.
Erie Insurance Company of New York, ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY (doing
business as ERIE INSURANCE GROUP), Erie Insurance Property &
Casualty Company, ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FLAGSHIP CITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00896, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 25, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00056-MRH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Erie Insurance --
https://www.erieinsurance.com/auto-insurance/new-york -- is a
publicly held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial
and life insurance through a network of independent insurance
agents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Berloth, Esq.
Charles C. Ritter, Jr., Esq.
Gregory P. Photiadis, Esq.
Steven William Klutkowski, Esq.
DUKE HOLZMAN PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP
701 Seneca Street, Ste. 750
Buffalo, NY 14210
Phone: (716) 855-1111
Fax: (716) 855-0327
Email: cberloth@dhpglaw.com
critter@dhpglaw.com
gpp@dhpglaw.com
sklutkowski@dhpglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Jay 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 -
Roy A. Mura, Esq.
Scott David Mancuso, Esq.
MURA & STORM, PLLC
930 Rand Building
14 Lafayette Square
Buffalo, NY 14203
Phone: (716) 855-2800
Fax: (716) 855-2816
Email: roy.mura@muralaw.com
scott.mancuso@muralaw.com
- and -
Kristin 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 -
Tiffany L Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
1201 West Peachtree Street
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: (404) 881-4249
Email: tiffany.powers@alston.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Zavogiannis Suit Moved From E.D. Tenn. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DIMITRIOS ZAVOGIANNIS d/b/a GONDOLA RESTAURANT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW YORK, AND ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, COLLECTIVELY
D/B/A ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Case No. 4:20-cv-00039, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on January 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00060-MRH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
denying coverage to the Plaintiff and Class members for business
losses as a result of state government's closure orders to mitigate
the spread of coronavirus.
Erie Insurance Exchange is an insurance company based in Erie,
Pennsylvania.
Erie Insurance Company is an insurance company based in Erie,
Pennsylvania.
Erie Insurance Company of New York is an insurance company
headquartered in New York.
Erie Insurance Property and Casualty is a property and casualty
insurance company headquartered in Erie, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Anthony Orlandi, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
- and –
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
Austin Doan, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
austind@turkestrauss.com
- and –
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Lisa LaFornara, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
llafornara@cohenandmalad.com
EXXON MOBIL: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon" or the "Company") (NYSE:
XOM) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
and docketed under 21-cv-000194, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise, acquired Exxon securities between November 6, 2019 and
January 14, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Exxon securities during the
Class Period, you have until March 29, 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.
Exxon explores for and produces crude oil and natural gas in the
U.S. and abroad. One of the Company's most important oil and gas
properties is in the Permian Basin, which is currently the
highest-producing oil field in the U.S.
The Complaint 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) Exxon forced its employees to use unrealistic
assumptions regarding the timelines for well drilling in the
Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing assumptions served to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's well operations in
the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when revealed,
subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation
and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On January 15, 2021, pre-market, the Wall Street Journal published
an article entitled "Exxon Draws SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset
Valuation." The article reported that the SEC probe stemmed from a
whistleblower complaint that, during a 2019 internal assessment,
workers were forced to use unrealistic assumptions about how
quickly wells in the Permian Basin could be drilled to reach a
higher valuation, and that at least one worker who complained about
the assumptions was fired.
On this news, Exxon's stock price fell $2.42 per share, or 4.81%,
to close at $47.89 per share on January 15, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN]
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: $12MM Class Settlement to be Distributed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Large commercial and industrial energy users in Ohio that were part
of a successful class action lawsuit against FirstEnergy Solutions
("FES") will soon be receiving their share of the $12 million
settlement.
Brakey Energy, Ohio's leading independent energy management firm
serving large, energy-intensive enterprises, was deeply involved
with the lawsuit. Carolyn Brakey, General Counsel of Brakey Energy
and now principal of Brakey Law LLC, originated the suit and
developed the case theory. Matt Brakey, President of Brakey Energy,
served as the expert witness.
Now commonly known as the "Polar Vortex Settlement," the case
concerned an FES surcharge, billed as the RTO Expense Surcharge,
that originated from increased electricity costs during the 2014
polar vortex. The class alleged that FES breached its fixed-rate
contracts with business customers by passing through charges that
FES paid in connection with efforts to ensure a reliable supply of
electricity during unusually cold weather. The surcharge amounted
to approximately one percent (1%) of the customer's annual electric
generation expenditure.
On May 21, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Ohio approved a $12 million class proof of
claim. The court-appointed claims administrator in the case is
tasked with identifying class members and disbursing the
settlement. Some smaller FES customers have already received
payments of at least $50. Larger class participants will receive
payments of at least $600, and in some cases, substantially more,
in the coming weeks.
"Brakey Energy is dedicated to helping Ohio businesses use energy
strategically and reduce energy costs," stated Matt Brakey. "We are
proud to have been involved in this case and to see our work pay
dividends to clients and other energy users in Ohio. It is
incredibly gratifying to know that millions of dollars will be
returned to customers that paid this dubious surcharge."
"Many companies believed the polar vortex surcharge was unfair, but
they didn't engage in litigation independently for various
reasons," explained Carolyn Brakey. "Through this class action, we
were able to achieve a fair and successful settlement on behalf of
commercial and industrial energy users in Ohio and neighboring
states."
Energy users with questions about the settlement can learn more by
contacting Brakey Law.
About Brakey Energy
Brakey Energy is an independent Ohio energy management firm with
decades of experience in Ohio energy contracting, rates, and
regulations. Brakey Energy serves as a strategic partner to many of
the state's largest energy-intensive entities. Learn more:
https://www.brakeyenergy.com/ [GN]
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Preis FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Yankov Preis, pleading on his own behalf and
on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, Case No. 036058/2020, was removed from Supreme
Court, County of Rockland County, to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York on Jan. 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:21-cv-00613 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Firstsource Advantage -- https://www.firstsourceadvantage.com/ --
is a leading global collections service provider and has been
delivering results in the collections arena since 1995. [BN]
The Plaintiff appear pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & PACAN LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 789-9343
Fax: (305) 789-9302
Email: bfrontino@stroock.com
FRANCE: Racial Profiling by Police Challenged in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three leading rights organizations joined with grass-roots groups
to launch France's first class action lawsuit targeting the
country's massive police machine, contending that it lawfully
propagates a culture leading to systemic discrimination in identity
checks.
The groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International,
and Open Society Justice Initiative, allege that police target
Black people and people of Arab descent in choosing who to stop and
check and say the practice is alienating those populations and a
danger to society.
The issue of racial profiling has festered for years. Now, the
organizations want deep law enforcement reforms, including a change
in the article in the penal code that governs checks and currently
gives police carte blanche with no trace of the encounter. They
seek no monetary damages.
Prime Minister Jean Castex and France's interior and justice
ministers were served formal legal notice of the demands in a
145-page document including witness accounts, studies, and demands
to ensure there's no racial profiling in police checks.
Omer Mas Capitolin, a founder of Community House for Supportive
Development, a grass-roots group taking part in the legal action,
said such checks are part of daily life for many people of color.
"When you're always checked, it lowers your self-esteem," and you
become a "second-class citizen," said Mas Capitolin, whose Paris
group works with youth often stopped for checks that he said can
end up in a police station.
The "victims are afraid to file complaints in this country even if
they know what happened isn't normal," he said, because they fear
fallout from neighborhood police.
He called it a "mechanical reflex" for police to stop non-whites, a
practice he said is damaging to the person being checked and
ultimately to relations between officers and the public they are
expected to protect.
Mas Capitolin said the case of George Floyd, the Black American who
died last year in Minneapolis after a white police officer pressed
his knee into his neck, is becoming a catalyst for change in
France.
Police are of another mind. For Stanislas Gaudon, general delegate
for Alliance Police Union, the claim that police discriminate in ID
checks drew a big "no."
"You know, police officers don't get up in the morning thinking
‘I'm going to go out and check the IDs of people of Arab descent
or Black people, or maybe Asian people or European people.' No," he
said in an interview.
"No, police are not discriminating and no, the police don't do
racial profiling," Gaudon added.
However, a nonwhite police officer posted in a tough Paris suburb
who is not connected with the case told the AP he is often
subjected to ID checks when in civilian clothes.
"When I'm not in uniform, I'm a person of color," said the officer,
who asked to remain anonymous in keeping with police rules and due
to the sensitive nature of the topic. Police need a legal basis for
their actions, "but 80 percent of the time they do checks [based
on] heads" -- meaning how a person looks.
In neighborhoods with a reputation for being tough, the encounter
can include insults by police, the officer said. Discrimination
within police ranks is a reality, he contended, and "unfortunately
people don't want to see."
"Repression" is the only contact with the public, he said.
The lead lawyer in the case, Antoine Lyon-Caen, stressed the legal
action does not target individual officers but "the system itself
that generates, by its rules, habits, culture, a discriminatory
practice."
"Since the shortcomings of the state [concern] a systemic practice,
the response, the reactions, the remedies, the measures, must be
systemic," Lyon-Caen said at a news conference with groups taking
action.
Major changes could be of service to police, he added, helping
rebuild their ties with the public.
The New York Police Department stands as a precursor for France.
The largest law enforcement department in the United States was
forced to make major changes after a 2013 class-action lawsuit
brought by a dozen Black and brown New Yorkers who said they were
stopped solely because of their race. A federal judge ruled the
NYPD had violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of New
Yorkers.
City leaders at the time said the checks were a necessary
crime-fighting tool, but very few checks resulted in arrest. Stops
dropped precipitously under the new regime, but crime did not
rise.
Serving notice is the obligatory first step in a two-stage lawsuit
process in a French class-action suit. The law gives French
authorities four months to talk with the groups about how they can
meet the demands. If the parties behind the lawsuit are left
unsatisfied, the case will go to court, according to one of the
lawyers, Slim Ben Achour.
"It's revolutionary, because we're going to speak for hundreds of
thousands, even a million people," Ben Achour said in a phone
interview.
The abuse of identity checks has served for many in France as
emblematic of broader alleged racism within police ranks, with
critics claiming that misconduct has been left unchecked or
whitewashed by authorities.
Video of a recent incident posted online drew a response from
President Emmanuel Macron, who called racial profiling
"unbearable."
Police representatives say officers themselves feel under attack
when they show up in suburban housing projects. During a spate of
confrontational incidents, officers became trapped and had
fireworks and other objects thrown at them.
Among a list of reforms sought by the groups is a change in the
penal code to demand accountability in stops, making them visible
with a record of the action and a receipt for the person stopped.
Among other demands, the organizations want an end to the
longstanding practice of gauging police performance by numbers of
tickets issued or arrests made, arguing that the benchmarks can
encourage baseless identity checks.
The lawsuit features some 50 witnesses, both police officers and
people allegedly subjected to abusive checks. The groups cite one
unnamed person who spoke of undergoing multiple police checks every
day for years.
"These are practices that impact the whole society," said Issa
Coulibaly, the head of Pazapas-Belleville, another organization in
the case. Like a downward spiral, profiling hurts youths' "feeling
of belonging" to the life of the nation and "reinforces prejudices
of others to this population," while degrading relations with
police.
For Ben Achour, the attorney, "It's so much in the culture.
[Officers] don't ever think there's a problem." [GN]
FUN TOWN ENTERPRISES: Springman Seeks Unpaid Technicians' Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL SPRINGMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUN TOWN ENTERPRISES, LLC and WACO
FUNTOWN, LP, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex., January
22, 2021), challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay policy
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a technician at
the Defendants' Waco dealership, alleges that despite regularly
working over 40 hours in a workweek, he and other similarly
situated technicians were not paid by the Defendants their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek.
The Corporate Defendants operate Recreational Vehicle (RV)
dealerships in and around Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberly, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
GANNETT CO: Must Face Call Center Workers' FLSA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Gannett Co. Inc. must face a class action from
call center workers who said the USA Today publisher made them log
into computer programs and review emails before clocking in, after
a Kentucky federal judge ruled that they met the bar for initial
certification. [GN]
GATES FINEST: Andrade Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GATES FINEST DELI CORP (D/B/A GATES FINEST
DELI), HATEM DOE, and "BLAD" DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00425 (E.D.N.Y., January 26, 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 minimum
wages and overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium,
failure to provide notice and recordkeeping requirements, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay on a
regular weekly basis.
The Plaintiff was employed as a deli man and a cook by the
Defendants at Gates Finest Deli in Brooklyn, New York from
approximately 2015 until on or about May 15, 2020.
Gates Finest Deli Corp, doing business as Gates Finest Deli, is an
owner and operator of Gates Finest Deli located at 318 Tompkins
Ave., Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
GEICO GENERAL: Cordon Insurance Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACQUES RONALD CORDON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, SYLVIA KRASNER, and JOSEPAH CHAIM KRASNER, Case No.
2020-026071-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on January 22,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-20286-DPG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Florida Statute by engaging into deceptive and unfair practices in
processing property/vehicle loss claims.
Geico General Insurance Company is an insurance company based in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John P. Marino, Esq.
Lindsey R. Trowell, Esq.
Kristen L. Wenger, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 598-6100
Facsimile: (904) 598-6204
E-mail: jmarino@sgrlaw.com
ltrowell@sgrlaw.com
kwenger@sgrlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Faulty Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam MceEachern reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against General Motors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia over an alleged airbag problem involving the
fifth-generation Chevy Camaro.
This class-action suit alleges the front passenger airbags in the
2010 and 2011 model year Chevy Camaro will switch off even when an
adult is in the passenger seat, Car Complaints reports. The problem
can apparently be traced back to the front passenger side presence
sensor pads, which are prone to tearing. The suit alleges GM knew
the pads were prone to tearing and issued an alert to the seat
supplier in 2009 to address the problem before introducing a
redesigned sensor pad in the vehicle in late 2010.
The automaker also issued technical service bulletins for the issue
back in 2009 and 2010. These TSBs indicated that some customers
complained the airbag readiness sensor light would illuminate on
the dash, warning them the passenger side airbag was turned off
even when an adult was positioned in the seat. For this reason, the
class-action suit says GM was aware of the issues with the sensor
pad and should have issued a safety recall for affected vehicles.
The plaintiff in this class action proceeding purchased a 2011
Chevy Camaro back in January of 2012, but says he would not have
done so if he knew the passenger side airbag would malfunction
seven years later in May of 2019. The plaintiff says the airbag
light illuminated and the airbag indicator light read "Off" when an
adult passenger was in the seat, prompting him to bring the car to
a GM dealer in November 2020. He paid $163.86 to have the problem
diagnosed, with the dealer then suggesting he replace the passenger
seat pad sensor and module at a cost of $1,799. The plaintiff
instead purchased the relevant parts online for $667.55 and had a
local mechanic install them for $300.
This class action suit involves 2010-2011 Chevy Camaro cars leased
or purchased by any consumers in the United States outside the
state of California. [GN]
GOOD DAY: Garcia Says Website Lacks Accessibility Info for Disabled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD DAY INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 21GDCV00104 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 25, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Kings Lodge Motel
on its reservation website, https://www.kingslodgemotelmpk.com/,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Good Day Inc. is an owner and operator of the Kings Lodge Motel
located at 340 S. Garfield Ave., Monterey Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: Valentin Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jasenia Valentin, Michelle Dicorte, and Sharesse Bunn, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v.
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC. d/b/a BRASS FLAMINGO, Case No.
8:21-cv-00190-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla., Jan. 26, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant seeking damages, back-pay, restitution,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiffs as "independent contractors." As a result, the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage compensation they were
entitled to under the FLSA and the FMWA. The Defendant has had
actual or constructive knowledge Brass Flamingo misclassified the
Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of as employees and
that the Defendant's failure to pay wages and charging unlawful
kickbacks to the Plaintiff was in direct violation of the FLSA and
the FMWA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers for the Defendant at the
Defendant's Gentlemen's Club.
The Defendant was in the business of operating a night club
featuring exotic dancers, at the Defendant's Brass Flamingo
Gentlemen's Club in Port Richey, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David B. Sacks, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SACKS
P.O. Box 50159
Jacksonville, FL 32240
Phone: (904) 634-1122
Email: david@lawofficejacksonville.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 25 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:GDRX) 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 September
23, 2020 and November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 16, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. GoodRx timed its IPO so that it was
priced before Amazon announced its competing service. This not only
facilitated the IPO, but also created artificial demand to maximize
the amount of money the Company and selling shareholders raised.
The Company knew about Amazon's competing service in advance of the
IPO, making their statements in the Registration Statement about
its competitive advantages to be false and misleading. 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 GoodRx, 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.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
GRAND PASADENA: Garcia Seeks Website Accessibility Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND PASADENA INN, INC. and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21GDCV00109 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Best Western
Pasadena Inn on its reservation Website,
https://www.bestwestern.com/en_US/book/hotels-in-pasadena/bestwestern-pasadena-inn/propertyCode.05323.html,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Grand Pasadena Inn, Inc. is an owner and operator of the Best
Western Pasadena Inn located at 3570 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
GUNVANTBHAI PATEL: Online Reservation Violates ADA, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUNVANTBHAI B. PATEL and KUSUMBEN G. PATEL,
Trustees of the G & K Family Trust Dated November 13, 2008; and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV03058 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 26, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Royala Motel on
its reservation Website,
http://royalamotel.thecaliforniahotels.com/en/,for people with
disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website reservation
system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to
assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for
them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online
booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about
whether the room will actually work for him due to his disability,
the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
HAMMOND'S CANDIES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hammond's Candies
Since 1920 II, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hammond's Candies
Since 1920 II, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00658 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hammond's Candies -- https://hammondscandies.com/ -- is beloved for
handmade candy canes, lollipops, marshmallows, chocolate, caramel
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
HILL: Miller Files RICO Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HILL, et al. The case
is styled as Williams C. Miller, for himself and others similarly
situated v. GENEVA LONE HILL, BRET A CRANDALL, III, RAINES RAYCEN,
JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, Case No. 2:21-cv-00338 (E.D. Pa., Jan.
25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Geneva Lone Hill serves as president of the Wakpamni Lake Community
Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert F. Salvin, Esq.
PHILA DEBT CLINIC & CONSUMER LAW CENTER
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1573
Phone: (215) 300-2388
Email: robert.salvin@outlook.com
HILLTOP SECURITIES: Fistanic Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PIERRE FISTANIC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HILLTOP SECURITIES INC. and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. 20STCV47743, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00634 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor violations
pursuant to the California Labor Code.
Hilltop Securities Inc. is a brokerage firm based in Dallas, Texas.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James P. Carter, Esq.
Osaama Saifi, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: James.Carter@jacksonlewis.com
Osaama.Saifi@jacksonlewis.com
HOTEL2SUITES LLC: Garcia Says Website Lacks Accessibility Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOTEL2SUITES LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendant,
Case No. 21STCV03059 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Home2 Suites by
Hilton Los Angeles Montebello on its reservation Website,
https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/lgbmoht-home2-suites-los-angelesmontebello/,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Hotel2Suites LLC is an owner and operator of the Home2 Suites by
Hilton Los Angeles Montebello located at 988 Via San Clemente,
Montebello, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
IANTHUS EMPIRE: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. ("iAnthus" or the "Company") (CSE:
IAN) (OTCPK: ITHUF) which owns, operates and partners with
regulated cannabis operations across the United States, provides
updates on: (i) a complaint filed by MPX New Jersey, LLC ("MPX
NJ"); (ii) the Company's previously announced recapitalization
transaction (the "Recapitalization Transaction"); and (iii) a class
action complaint filed against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC ("IEH") for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Receipt of Complaint Filed by MPX New Jersey, LLC
The Company is in receipt of a complaint (the "Complaint") filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey by MPX NJ against iAnthus New
Jersey, LLC ("iAnthus NJ") and iAnthus Capital Management, LLC
("ICM"). MPX NJ entered into a Financing, Leasing, Licensing and
Services Agreement with iAnthus NJ in August 2019 (the "Services
Agreement"). Additionally, MPX NJ and iAnthus NJ entered into
several other agreements, including a Loan Agreement and an Option
Agreement, whereby iAnthus NJ is provided various rights by which
it may acquire 100% ownership of MPX NJ, subject to certain
conditions and approvals. The current majority owner of MPX NJ is
Elizabeth Stavola, a former director and Chief Strategy Officer of
iAnthus.
MPX NJ seeks a declaratory judgment from the court declaring: (i)
MPX NJ is solely authorized to represent its interests to state and
local officials and other parties and that Ms. Stavola is
principally responsible for the management and operations of MPX
NJ; and (ii) that the Services Agreement is currently ineffective
and unenforceable. In the Complaint, MPX NJ also seeks preliminary
and final injunctive relief enjoining ICM and iAnthus NJ from
representing itself as having authority to act on MPX NJ's behalf
or as having a controlling interest in MPX NJ and from executing
any agreements on MPX NJ's behalf with any state or local official
or other party. Additionally, MPX NJ seeks relief enjoining ICM and
iAnthus NJ from acting, directing, or causing any actions at the
Pleasantville, New Jersey cultivation facility absent express
consent from MPX NJ. The Superior Court of New Jersey has
preliminarily entered an Order, with ICM's and iAnthus NJ's
consent, granting temporary restraints that: (i): enjoin ICM and
iAnthus NJ from entering into contracts that would bind MPX NJ;
(ii) enjoin ICM and iAnthus NJ from representing that iAnthus
currently has a controlling interest in MPX NJ and that any future
control is subject to approval by the New Jersey Department of
Health; and (iii) require ICM and iAnthus NJ to disclose to MPX NJ
all contracts and activities taking place at the Pleasantville, New
Jersey cultivation facility and to obtain consent of MPX NJ for any
construction that takes place in regulated cultivation areas of the
facility.
iAnthus disputes the allegations of the Complaint and disputes that
it ever engaged in the conduct that was the subject of the
temporary restraints in the first place. The Company will avail
itself of all available legal remedies to vigorously defend its
interests in court.
Recapitalization Transaction
Further to iAnthus' news release dated November 5, 2020, regarding
the appeal in respect of the Supreme Court of British Columbia's
(the "BC Supreme Court") final approval for the plan of arrangement
to implement the Recapitalization Transaction, the Company confirms
that the appeal is scheduled to be heard on January 26, 2021. The
submissions will be held virtually before a three-member panel of
the British Columbia Court of Appeal. iAnthus considers the appeal
to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend its interest
in court.
For further details on the BC Supreme Court's approval for the
Recapitalization Transaction, see the Company's news release dated
October 6, 2020, a copy of which is available under the Company's
SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com.
Receipt of Class Action Complaint
The Company is in receipt of a class action complaint ("Class
Action Complaint") filed against its wholly-owned New York
management company subsidiary, IEH, alleging violations of the TCPA
relating to IEH's alleged text message marketing. Similar class
action complaints have been filed against other cannabis operators
across the U.S. The Class Action Complaint seeks actual and
statutory damages and other remedies for IEH's alleged violations
of the TCPA. iAnthus disputes the allegations of the Class Action
Complaint and will vigorously defend its interests in court.
About iAnthus
iAnthus owns and operates licensed cannabis cultivation, processing
and dispensary facilities throughout the United States. For more
information, visit www.iAnthus.com. [GN]
INCGSGI INC: Misclassifies Security Guards, Vela Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE VELA, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INCGSGI INC., a Florida Profit Corporation,
and DANIEL K. COSTOULAS, individually, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00059 (M.D. Fla., January 22, 2021) alleges the Defendant
of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to
overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard from
approximately October 2018 until May 13, 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant classified him as
independent contractors. Although he worked in excess of 40 per
work week throughout his employment with the Defendant, the
Defendant allegedly failed to pay his overtime compensation at one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for overtime hours he
worked.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered damages as a
result of the Defendants' intentional, willful, and unlawful acts.
Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated seeking unpaid
overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the suit says.
INCGSGI Inc. is a private company which offers law enforcement and
community-based security personnel to provide customized security
services. Daniel K. Costoulas is the acting manager and registered
agent. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Edward W. Wimp, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Tel: (407) 574-4999
Fax: (833) 523-5864
E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
maugello@theleachfirm.com
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: March 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Pomerantz LLP, and Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the Supreme Court
of New York, New York County has approved the following
announcement of the proposed class action settlements that would
benefit purchasers of American Depositary Shares of Jumia
Technologies AG (NYSE:JMIA):
In re Jumia Technologies AG Securities Litigation,
Case No. 19-cv-4397 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.)
Convery v. Jumia Technologies AG, et al.,
Index No. 656021/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.) (Masley, J.)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTIONS AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS;
(II) MOTIONS FOR AWARDS OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (III) SETTLEMENT HEARINGS
TO: (i) All persons or entities (and their beneficiaries) who
purchased or otherwise acquired Jumia Technologies AG ("Jumia")
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") from April 12, 2019, through
and including December 9, 2019, and were damaged thereby (the
"Exchange Act Settlement Class"); and (ii) All persons or entities
(and their beneficiaries) who purchased or otherwise acquired Jumia
ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued
in connection with the initial public offering of Jumia ADSs
("IPO") during the period from April 12, 2019, through and
including December 9, 2019, and were damaged thereby (the
"Securities Act Settlement Class," and together with the Exchange
Act Settlement Class, the "Classes" or "Settlement Classes").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Classes as set
forth in detail in the Stipulations of Settlement for the Federal
Action and the State Action and the Long Notice described below.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY PENDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and an order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in a lawsuit captioned
In re Jumia Technologies AG Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-4397
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Action"), and further, pursuant to Article
9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, and an order of the
Supreme Court of New York, New York County, in a lawsuit captioned
Convery v. Jumia Technologies AG, et al., Index No. 656021/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.) (the "State Action"), that the parties
in the Federal Action and the State Action have reached proposed
settlements in the amount of $2,000,000.00 in cash in the Federal
Action (the "Federal Action Settlement") and $3,000,000.00 in cash
in the State Action (the "State Action Settlement," and together
with the Federal Action Settlement, the "Settlements").1
If approved, the Settlements will resolve all claims in the Federal
Action and the State Action. A hearing will be held in the Federal
Action on March 17, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable P.
Kevin Castel at the United States District Court, 500 Pearl Street,
Courtroom 11D New York, NY 10007 (the "Federal Court"), and a
hearing will be held in the State Action on March 18, 2021 at 2:30
p.m., before the Honorable Justice Andrea Masley at the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Room 647, 60
Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 (the "State Court") to determine
whether: (i) the Exchange Act Settlement Class and the Securities
Act Settlement Class should be certified only for purposes of the
Federal Action Settlement and the State Action Settlement,
respectively; (ii) the Federal Action Settlement and the State
Action Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (iii) the Federal Action and the State Action should be
dismissed with prejudice, and the releases specified and described
in the Federal Stipulation and the State Stipulation (and in the
Long Notice described below) should be entered; (iv) the proposed
Plan of Allocation for the Settlements should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (v) Federal Lead Counsel's and State
Plaintiff's Counsel's applications for awards of attorneys' fees of
up to one-third of the Settlements, expenses of up to $125,000.00
in the Federal Action and $75,000.00 in the State Action, and
awards to Plaintiffs in the Actions in the amount of up to
$2,500.00 each should be approved. The Federal Court and the State
Court may change the date of the settlement approval hearings and
reserve the right to hold the hearings telephonically or by other
virtual means. You do NOT need to attend the settlement approval
hearings to receive a distribution of the proceeds from the
Settlements.
The Settlements will not become effective until both the Federal
Action Settlement and the State Action Settlement receive final
approval from their respective Courts, and both have become Final.
If approved, the Settlements will resolve all claims in the Federal
and State Actions.
If you are a member of one or both Classes, your rights will be
affected by the pending Federal and State Actions and the
Settlements, and you may be entitled to share in the proceeds of
the Settlements. This Summary Notice provides only a summary of the
information contained in the detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Actions and Proposed Settlement of Federal Action and State
Action; (II) Motions for Awards of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses; and (III) Settlement Hearings (the "Long Notice"). You
may obtain copies of the Long Notice, along with the Proof of Claim
and Release Form, by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: Jumia Technologies AG Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Long
Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at
https://www.strategicclaims.net.
If you are a member of one or both of the Settlement Classes, in
order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlements, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form to
the Claims Administrator either: (1) electronically at
https://www.strategicclaims.net by 11:59 p.m. EST on February 24,
2021; or (2) by mail postmarked no later than February 19, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Proof of Claim
and Release Form. Subject to the Courts' approval, the Claims
Administrator will continue to accept as timely submitted Proof of
Claim and Release Forms received by April 26, 2021. If you are a
member of one or both Classes and do not submit a valid and timely
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Federal Action
Settlement or the State Action Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered
by the Federal Court in the Federal Action and/or the State Court
in the State Action.
If you are a member of one or both of the Settlement Classes and
wish to exclude yourself from one or both Classes, you must submit
a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is
received no later than February 24, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Long Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from one or both Classes, you will not be bound by any
releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Federal Court in the
Federal Action and/or the State Court in the State Action, and you
will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the
Settlements. Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow
you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against
Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the
claims released in the Settlements. Please note, however, that if
you decide to exclude yourself, you may be time-barred from
asserting certain of the claims covered by the Federal and/or State
Actions by a statute of limitations or repose.
Objections, if any, to the proposed Federal Action Settlement or
the proposed State Action Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation (as contained in the Long Notice), and/or Federal Lead
Counsel's and State Plaintiff's Counsel's motions for attorneys'
fees and expenses, must be filed with the Federal Court or the
State Court, respectively, and delivered to the respective counsel
at the addresses listed below such that they are received no later
than February 24, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Long Notice.
Federal Court
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
State Court
County Clerk of New York County
Hon. Milton Tingling
New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street, Room 161
New York, NY 10007
Lead Counsel for Federal Plaintiffs and the Exchange Act Settlement
Class
Phillip Kim
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Jeremy Lieberman
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Plaintiff's Counsel for State Plaintiff and the Securities Act
Settlement Class
Jeffrey P. Campisi
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Counsel for Jumia and the Individual Defendants
David M.J. Rein
Julia A. Malkina
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants
Jonathan Rosenberg
William J. Sushon
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Counsel for Defendant E&Y
Richard T. Marooney
King & Spalding LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE FEDERAL COURT, THE STATE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE OF EITHER COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. All questions about this Summary
Notice, the Settlements, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlements should be directed to the counsel set forth below or
the Claims Administrator.
Requests for the Long Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release
Form should be made to the Claims Administrator:
Jumia Technologies AG Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
Media, PA 19063
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net
Inquiries, other than requests for the Long Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form, may be made to Federal Lead Counsel, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz LLP, and State Plaintiff's
Counsel, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, as provided below:
Federal Lead Counsel
Phillip Kim
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
Jeremy Lieberman
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
State Plaintiff's Counsel
Jeffrey P. Campisi
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Fax: (212) 687-7714
Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2020
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
DATED: JANUARY 5, 2021
Supreme Court of the State of New York
New York County
1 Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Summary Notice are
defined in the Federal Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 9,
2020, in the Federal Action, and the State Stipulation of
Settlement, dated October 9, 2020, in the State Action, which are
available at www.strategicclaims.net. [GN]
K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Allen et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY ALLEN, and also JB1 and JB2, each a Minor, by ASHLEY RICE,
their Mother and Next Friend; each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K-MAC ENTERPRISES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01008-SOH (W.D. Ark., January 22,
2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged willful and intentional violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant for at least three years
prior to the filing of this Complaint as hourly-paid employees and
non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and the
AMWA.
The Plaintiffs assert that they and other hourly employees worked
more than 40 hours a week in accordance with the Defendant's
requirement, including off-the-clock. Specifically, they were
required to clock out but remain on the Defendant's premises and
ready to work on multiple occasions throughout the workday.
However, the Defendant did not properly compensate them for all
hours or all overtime hours they worked each week.
Moreover, the Defendant regularly shaved hours from the Plaintiffs'
time. The Plaintiffs and other hourly employees received a receipt
from the register when they clocked out which shows the number of
hours they had worked that day, but it did not always match up with
the number of hours on their paystubs.
The Plaintiffs seek for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.
K-Mac Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates several Taco Bell
franchises throughout the Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
April Rheaume, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
KEY MECHANICAL: Stafford Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AUDRA K. STAFFORD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KEY MECHANICAL CO. OF WASHINGTON,
Case No. 20-2-08973-2, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on January 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-05063 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Washington Minimum Wage Act and the Washington Industrial Welfare
Act including failure to pay wages for all time spent driving
company vehicles, failure to ensure rest periods, and failure to
provide meal periods.
Key Mechanical Co. of Washington is engaged in the construction,
installation, and maintenance of commercial refrigeration based in
Kent, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Darren A. Feider, Esq.
Matthew R. Kelly, Esq.
SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES
15375 SE 30th Pl., Suite 310
Bellevue, WA 98007
Telephone: (425) 454-4233
E-mail: dfeider@sebrisbusto.com
mkelly@sebrisbusto.com
LANDWIN HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDWIN HOSPITALITY, LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21GDCV00096 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Hilton Los
Angeles/San Gabriel hotel on its reservation Website,
https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/laxsghf-hilton-los-angeles-san-gabriel/,
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Landwin Hospitality, LLC is an owner and operator of the Hilton Los
Angeles/San Gabriel located at 225 W. Valley Blvd., San Gabriel,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
LIZHI INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.
Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI)
Class Period: American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") purchased
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about January 17, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering")
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
On or about January 17, 2020 the company conducted its IPO, selling
4.1 million Lizhi ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Defendants generated
approximately $45 million in gross offering proceeds from their
sale of Lizhi's securities in the IPO.
By the commencement of this action, Lizhi shares are trading below
$4 per share, a decline of over 63% from the offering price.
The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the
time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the
home base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its
employees, and its customers; (2) the complications associated with
the coronavirus were already negatively affecting Lizhi's business,
as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment,
or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and
monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior
to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to,
Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation and financial
condition and prospects; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
For more information on the Lizhi class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LIZI
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN),
Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI), Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT), and
9F, Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU). Stockholders have until the deadlines below
to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
LONG TZONG: Faces Garcia Suit Over Online Room's Access Features
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONG TZONG SYIAU, Trustee of Long Tzong
Syiau, U/T/A 8/18/2017; CHIEN EGO WANG HSIAO, Trustee under the
Hsiao Living Trust, dated: March 28, 2006; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 21GDCV00108 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Ambassador Inn
Alhambra on its reservation Website,
https://www.magnusonhotels.com/hotel/ambassador-inn-alhambra, for
people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
LUBBOCK, TX: Class Action Suit Filed Over Contaminated Water Wells
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of private water
well owners in Lubbock for contamination of groundwater in the
area.
KAMC News reports that a New York law firm, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC,
filed the lawsuit. Napoli Shkolnik has said that this complaint was
filed against certain manufacturers.
The law firm says that storage and disposal of certain materials at
the former Reese Air Force Base exposed residents in the area to
toxic materials. The statement says that residents suffered cancer
and other ailments.
Not only that, but in the statement, Napoli Shkolnik said that
property values in the area had dropped because of the
contamination.
The statement listed aqueous firefighting foams containing
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA).
Reese Air Force Base closed back in the 1990's. It's reported that
the US Air Force had acknowledge contamination at Reese and other
bases nationwide. PFAS, Polyfluoroalkyl compounds, were used to
extinguish aircraft tires and was used to train firefighters to
respond to aircraft fires before the base closed.
Investigations into chemicals found in water near Reese began in
2020, but Paul Caroll, Air Force Program Manager for the former
base, said they became aware of the harmful effects on these
chemicals in 2017, and began investigating since. Caroll also said
residents in the area wouldn't be affected. [GN]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Gopu Securities Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VIJAYA GOPU and NIRMALA GOPU, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC.,
CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU, JENNY ZHIYA QIAN, JIAN LIU, REINOUT HENDRIK
SCHAKEL, HUI LI, JINYI GUO, ERHAI LIU, SEAN SHAO, THOMAS P. MEIER,
NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORP. HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD., HAITONG
INT'L SECURITIES CO. LTD., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and
KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01747, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on January 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00484-UA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading registration statements and prospectuses with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Luckin Coffee
Inc.'s May 2019 initial public offering and January 2020 secondary
offering.
Luckin Coffee Inc. is a coffee company and coffeehouse chain based
in Xiamen, China.
Needham & Company, LLC is an independent investment bank and asset
management firm based in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company based
in New York, New York.
China International Capital Corp. is an investment banking firm,
headquartered in Beijing, China.
Hong Kong Securities Ltd. is a wealth management firm based in Hong
Kong, China.
Haitong Int'l Securities Co. Ltd. is an international financial
institution, headquartered in Hong Kong, China.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is an investment banking company
based in New York, New York.
KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. is an investment advisory services
provider based in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kim E. Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 696-3730
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
- and –
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
MCGRAW HILL: Reduces Royalties Paid to Authors, Flynn Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN FLYNN, DEAN KARLAN, and JONATHAN MORDUCH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCGRAW HILL
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00614 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its contracts
with authors, including the Plaintiffs, by its unilateral action in
reducing the royalties it pays to authors when it sells their
textbooks, works, or parts thereof, in an electronic format. By
artificially redefining the price of authors' works as only a
fraction of the revenues McGraw Hill receives for the sale of those
works, McGraw Hill has reduced the amounts on which royalty
payments are due. In so doing, McGraw Hill has deprived authors of
the benefit of their bargains with the company, the suit says.
McGraw Hill LLC is an educational publishing company with its
headquarters located at 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor, New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq.
Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
rschiffrin@gelaw.com
cmoyna@gelaw.com
- and –
Andrew N. Dodemaide, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7021
E-mail: adodemaide@gelaw.com
MEI-FU INC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Online Room's Access Features
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEI-FU INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 21GDCV00095 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 25, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the GreenTree Inn &
Suites Alhambra, Los Angeles on its reservation Website,
https://www.greentreeinn.com/hotels/ca/alhambra, for people with
disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website lacks sufficient
information needed by disabled travelers to assess independently
whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a result, the
Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of the hotel
room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the room will
actually work for him due to his disability, the suit says.
Mei-Fu Inc. is an owner and operator of the GreenTree Inn & Suites
Alhambra, Los Angeles located at 2499 W. Main St., Alhambra,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern
Dynasty" or the "Company") (NYSE: NAK) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-06126, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Northern Dynasty
securities from December 21, 2017 through November 25, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Northern Dynasty securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 2, 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.
Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration of mineral properties
in the U.S. Its principal mineral property is the Pebble
copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that
cover an area of approximately 417 square miles located in
southwest Alaska (the "Pebble Project").
The Complaint 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) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to
Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (ii) the
Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration
and scope than conveyed to the public; (iii) as a result, the
Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be
denied by the US Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and (iv) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Army released a statement concerning
the Pebble Project, stating that it would result in "significant
degradation of the environment and would likely result in
significant adverse effects on the aquatic system or human
environment." The U.S. Army further found that "the project, as
currently proposed, cannot be permitted under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act." The U.S. Army requested that the Company submit a
mitigation plan in response to this finding.
On this news, Northern Dynasty's common share price fell $0.55 per
share, or 37.9%, to close at $0.90 per share on August 24, 2020.
On September 21, 2020, the Environmental Investigation Agency
released a recording between investigators and Company executives
that demonstrated that Northern Dynasty, contrary to previous
public statements, actually planned to build a mine that would last
up to 180 years.
On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty reported that the USACE had
rejected its permit applications related to the Pebble Project.
On this news, Northern Dynasty's common share price fell $0.40 per
share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020,
damaging investors.
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.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
PENUMBRA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE: PEN) from
August 3, 2020 through December 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Penumbra securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Penumbra Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it
unsafe for its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately
address the risk of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and
deaths, which had in fact already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as
a result, Penumbra's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On December 8, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management ("QCM")
published a report questioning the validity and independence of the
scientific research supporting the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, and
accused the Company of using a fake author to publish studies
regarding the purported safety and efficacy of its products.
In response, Penumbra's stock price fell by 9%, $224.02 per share
on December 7, 2020, to $204.70 per share on December 8, 2020, a
decline of $19.95 per share.
On December 15, 2020, after the markets closed, the Company issued
a press release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" recall
of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter "may become susceptible
to distal tip damage during use" which could lead to injury or
death. On a conference call held the same day, the Company's CEO
acknowledged that the product's design "ma[de] the catheter
susceptible to failure in certain scenarios" and that the Company's
"steps to ensure the safe use of the product . . . were not able to
fully address the risks."
In response, Penumbra's stock price fell by 7%, from $188.82 per
share on December 15, 2020 to $174.98 per share on December 16,
2020, a decline of $13.84 per share.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Penumbra securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/penumbrainc-pen-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-345/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
http://www.bernlieb.com[GN]
PENUMBRA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.
Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN)
Class Period: August 3, 2020 to December 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
Penumbra is a global healthcare company that develops, manufactures
and sells innovative medical devices for patients suffering from
stroke and other vascular and neurovascular diseases.
Until recently, one of the Company's flagship products was the "Jet
7 Xtra Flex," an aspiration catheter designed to be inserted into
an affected artery, navigated to a blood clot, and used to suck the
clot out of the patient's body. The Jet 7 Xtra Flex was introduced
to the U.S. market in July 2019 and quickly became a "growth
driver" for the Company, a key source of new revenues.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures that caused
Penumbra's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial
losses.
Most recently, on December 15, 2020, the Company issued a press
release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" and "voluntary"
recall of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter "may become
susceptible to distal tip damage during use" which could lead to
injury or death.
In response, Penumbra's stock price fell 7%, from $188.82 per share
on December 15, 2020 to $174.98 per share on December 16, 2020, a
decline of $13.84 per share.
The complaint, filed on January 15, 2021, alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, as well
as the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Among other
things, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the
Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for
its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the
risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which
had in fact already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was
likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a
result, Penumbra's public statements as set forth above were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Penumbra class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PEN
For more information on the 9F class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/JFU
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PENUMBRA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) investors to submit
their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed,
and certain investors may have valuable claims.
Class Period: Aug. 3, 2020 – Dec. 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 16, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PEN
Contact An Attorney Now: PEN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Penumbra, Inc. (PEN) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Penumbra misled investors about the
company's Jet 7 Xtra Flex, a flagship product for treating
strokes.
According to the complaint, Defendants repeatedly assured investors
that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe," "exactly what we
hoped it would be," and "not a product that has any possibility of
needing to be recalled." In truth, Defendants allegedly knew that
(1) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it
unsafe for its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately
address the risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and
deaths, which had in fact already occurred; and (3) that the Jet 7
Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures ending on Dec.
15, 2020, when Penumbra announced it was voluntarily recalling all
configurations of its JET 7 Xtra Flex device because it may be
susceptible to damage during use and subsequent patient injury or
death.
These events have driven the price of Penumbra shares sharply
lower.
"We're focused on investor losses and proving Penumbra misled
investors about the Jet 7 device's safety," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a Penumbra investor or have information that may assist
our investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with
Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Penumbra should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email PEN@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com [GN]
PEOPLESBANK: Tully Employment Class Suit Goes to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEBORA TULLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEOPLESBANK, Case No. 20-2-08973-2,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts
for Hampden County to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on January 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-30007 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's discrimination and retaliation
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, and the Families Medical Leave Act.
PeoplesBank is a financial services company based in Holyoke,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Layla G. Taylor, Esq.
SULLIVAN, HAYES & QUINN, LLC
One Monarch Place – Suite 1200
Springfield, MA 01144-1200
Telephone: (413) 736-4538
Facsimile: (413) 731-8206
E-mail: Layla.Taylor@sullivanandhayes.com
PETSCRIPT INC: Animal Medical Center Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER OF ORLAND PARK, INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETSCRIPT INC., d/b/a
PETSCRIPT PROLAB PHARMACY, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00408 (N.D. Ill., January 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and the common
law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the rights of
the Plaintiff and Class members by sending them unsolicited fax
advertisement. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, they
suffered damages in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed
from the unsolicited faxes, the suit says.
Animal Medical Center of Orland Park, Inc. is an animal hospital
with offices at 16200 S. LaGrange Road, Orland Park, Illinois.
PetScript Inc., doing business as PetScript Prolab Pharmacy, is a
veterinary compounding pharmacy, with its principal place of
business at 3020 Lamar Avenue, Paris, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
- and –
Frank F. Owen, Esq.
FRANK F. OWEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1091 Ibis Avenue
Miami Springs, FL 33166
Telephone: (305) 984-8915
E-mail: FFO@Castlepalms.com
PRINCETON, NJ: Saunders Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 3rd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Hardy Saunders, Jr., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in his lawsuit styled William Saunders, Jr. v. Arts Council
of Princeton, et al., Case No. 3-19-cv-19018, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged civil rights violations.
Mr. Saunders is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated
January 8, 2021 that the second amended complaint against the
Defendants is dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as William Saunders, Jr. v. Art
Council of Princeton, et al., Case No. 21-1118, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 22,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM HARDY SAUNDERS, JR., artist and
photographer, member of class represent minority group, as
individual, and on behalf class all other persons similarly
situated John and Mary Does one through hundred yet to be
identified and determine part of this action a suit for damages,
appears pro se.
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Pawar Law Group Reminds of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Jan. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
QuantumScape Corporation (NYSE: QS) from November 27, 2020 through
December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for QuantumScape Corporation investors
under the federal securities laws. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 8, 2021.
To join the class action, go https://bit.ly/3tenSmk or call Vik
Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's purported
success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and
energy density were significantly overstated; the Company's battery
technology was not sufficient for electric vehicle performance as
it would not be able to withstand the aggressive automotive
environment; the Company's battery technology likely provided no
meaningful improvement over existing battery technology; the
Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the
multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles the
successful commercialization of the Company's battery technology
was subject to much more significant risks and uncertainties than
defendants had disclosed; and as a result of the foregoing,
defendants materially overstated the value and prospects of the
Company's battery technology. 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 March 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact;
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]
RANCHHODJI LLC: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RANCHHODJI, LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendant,
Case No. 21GDCV00097 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Del Mar Motel on
its reservation Website, https://www.delmarmotelrosemead.com/, for
people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Ranchhodji, LLC is an owner and operator of the Del Mar Motel
located at 1605 Del Mar Ave., Rosemead, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
RAY MOLES: Colores Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FILEMON COLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RAY MOLES FARMS, INC. and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. VCU 285177, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of California, County of Tulare, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on January
25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00101-NONE-BAM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order including
failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide
all required meal periods, failure to authorize all rest periods or
pay premium in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate payroll
records, failure to timely pay all wages owed to separating
employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
Ray Moles Farms, Inc. is an agricultural business located in
Fresno, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas E. Campagne, Esq.
Justin T. Campagne, Esq.
CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
A Professional Corporation
Airport Office Center
1685 North Helm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
Telephone: (559) 255-1637
Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com
RING LLC: Jack Consumer Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANDON JACK and JEAN ALDA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. RING LLC, Case No.
CGC-20-588258, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on January 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00544 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising
Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law by failing to
disclose to consumers, including the Plaintiffs, that the video
recording, playback and snapshot features of the Ring video
doorbells and security cameras are only accessible if they also
purchase an additional Protect Plan service.
Ring LLC is a home security and smart home company, with its
principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott R. Commerson, Esq.
James H. Moon, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: scottcommerson@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
- and –
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com
- and –
Joseph E. Addiego III, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Ste. 800,
San Francisco, CA 94111-6533
Telephone: (415) 276-6500
Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
E-mail: joeaddiego@dwt.com
RIOT GAMES: Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs to Arbitrate
---------------------------------------------------------------
After two years of negotiations and an initial class settlement
offer with prior plaintiffs' counsel that was so low it triggered
two California state agencies' involvement, Riot Games is seeking
to compel its female employees into individual secret arbitrations.
The women of Riot are fighting to keep their sexual harassment and
pay equity claims in court and collectively advance as a class.
On Monday, Jan. 25, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. PST lawyers for both sides
will ask a Los Angeles court to determine if Riot Games' course
reversal amounts to a waiver of the mandatory individual
arbitration clause included in most of the plaintiffs' employment
contracts.
"For two years Riot Games pursued settlement instead of
arbitration, trying to reap the benefits that the court could
deliver via a classwide settlement," says plaintiffs' counsel Genie
Harrison, nationally recognized for cases against the Weinstein
Company and other high-profile offenders and for prosecuting class
actions. "Even after the California Department of Fair Employment
and Housing and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement opposed
the initial settlement, Riot Games continued to engage in talks
while we spent time, effort and money on experts to determine a
fair settlement."
"Now that Riot knows it can't settle the case on the cheap, it
wants to force Riot women into arbitration, preventing the women
from fighting together as a group against the company," Harrison
adds. "If Riot succeeds, it will pay a private judge huge amounts
of money to decide the fate of the women's claims. And all that
will happen in secret, with Riot's discriminatory conduct hidden
from the public."
If the court approves Riot Games' motion, not only will years of
effort be wasted, but women who are already part of the class will
need to file individual arbitration actions. [GN]
RIPPLE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Florida Over XRP Tokens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Embattled firm Ripple is facing a fresh legal challenge after a new
class action lawsuit was filed in Florida.
According to reports, Ripple and a subsidiary, XRP II LLC, are
subject to the claim, alongside CEO Brad Garlinghouse, which could
result in further liability over the issuance of the firm's XRP
tokens.
The case alleges that the defendants engaged in the sale of
"millions of dollars (or more)" in XRP tokens, despite not
registering as a security with either federal or state
authorities.
Furthermore, the case alleges that the defendants actively
concealed the nature of XRP as a security from investors.
"On numerous occasions, Defendants made public statements claiming
that XRP was not a security, when in fact it is. Defendants
actively concealed from investors the true nature of XRP."
The lawsuit has been filed by a Florida resident, Tyler Toomey, who
purchased 135 XRP in November 2020, before selling at a 50% loss in
December. The transaction itself was valued at less than $100, but
as a class action lawsuit, other XRP investors in Florida can now
join the case.
"Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all persons or
entities in the State of Florida who purchased XRP."
The case is the latest legal threat to mount against Ripple and its
board, following charges raised against the firm by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
After the SEC declared its belief that XRP was in fact a security,
and therefore its unregistered sale illegal, numerous cases have
emerged, including from investors who have sold at a loss.
Ripple continues to deny the allegations that its token is a
security, despite the view of the SEC. Ripple has said it will
contest the charges brought by the regulator in court.
Follow CoinGeek's Crypto Crime Cartel series, which delves into the
stream of groups—from BitMEX to Binance, Bitcoin.com,
Blockstream, ShapeShift and Ethereum—who have co-opted the
digital asset revolution and turned the industry into a minefield
for naïve (and even experienced) players in the market. [GN]
ROAD SCHOLAR: Underpays Truck Drivers, Williams Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIC WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROAD SCHOLAR STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00052 (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2021),
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, breach of employment contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a truck driver in or
around April 2020 until November 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant underpaid him and other
truck drivers it employed for their mileage. Although they
typically worked in excess of 100 hours each week, the Defendant
failed to accurately track all the time they worked, and did not
pay them for other types of compensation required under their
employment contracts. As a result, their hourly pay effectively
dropped below the $7.25 per hour minimum wage under the FLSA in
many workweeks.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant breached their
employment contract that was executed upon its truck drivers'
hiring in which they were entitled to certain compensation for
their services, including mileage pay, certain bonuses, layover
pay, detention pay, and driver assist pay, among other
compensation. The Defendant has therefore been unjustly enriched by
accepting the work performed by its truck drivers without properly
compensating them, the suit says.
Road Scholar Staffing, Inc. offers truck driving services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrisson@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.:
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of those
who lost money using Robinhood Financial, LLC, Robinhood Securities
LLC, and Robinhood Markets, Inc. ("Robinhood") resulting from
allegations that Robinhood may have engaged in illegal market
manipulation.
SO WHAT: If you used the Robinhood trading platform to invest in
AAL, AMC, BB, BBBY, CTRM, EXPR, GME, KOSS, NAKD, NOK, SNDL, TR, and
TRVG, and suffered losses as a result of Robinhood's actions to
curb trading and increase margin requirements for certain of these
securities on January 28, 2021, you may be entitled to seek
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action. In
order to join, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2029.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
DETAILS OF THE MATTER: On January 28, 2021, Robinhood announced
that it was restricting transactions in certain securities to
closing positions only, including AAL, AMC, BB, BBBY, CTRM, EXPR,
GME, KOSS, NAKD, NOK, SNDL, TR, and TRVG, and raising margin
requirements for certain securities, purportedly to "keep customers
informed through market volatility." As a result of this artificial
market constriction, prices of the aforementioned securities fell
dramatically, and investors were significantly damaged.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
To join the Robinhood class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2029.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. [GN]
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Levi & Korsinsky to Probe Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, a national securities law firm that has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, announces
that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of investors
against Robinhood and other popular retail trading platforms, who
invested or were prevented from investing in NOK, BBBY, GME and
other stocks pursuant to trading bans on these stocks.
On January 28, 2021, customers of Robinhood and other popular
trading platforms claimed that they were being blocked from
purchasing shares of Nokia Corporation (NYSE:NOK), Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc. (NASDAQ:BBBY), GameStop Corp. (NYSE:GME), and other
securities that are being heavily shorted by institutional
investors.
Recently, retail investors have turned the tables on Wall Street by
buying up stocks heavily shorted by hedge funds such as Melvin
Capital, causing increased volatility and short-squeeze losses to
these institutional investors. However, on January 28th, Robinhood
announced that retail investors could no longer purchase certain
stocks, such as BBBY, GME, NOK and others, and raised margin
requirements for certain securities.
The inability to trade shares has sparked outrage across social
media, as users took to Twitter to vent their frustrations,
stating:
"You can no longer buy GameStop stock on Robinhood. Ditto Nokia,
AMC, and all the other stocks that had been shorted."
Another said: "The free market is only free until rich people lose
money."
In response to these actions, Dave Portnoy, the founder of the
sports and pop culture blog Barstool Sports, released a series of
tweets questioning Robinhood's integrity and agenda. He called for
retail investors not to close their positions.
On January 28, GameStop traded down 55%, and Bed Bath & Beyond
(NASDAQ: BBBY) was down 39% amid the Robinhood restrictions.
To learn more about this investigation and your rights if you
believe you have suffered losses, go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/robinhood-and-other-retail-brokers-class-action-information-request-form.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, Connecticut, California, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities
litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors
throughout the nation in securities lawsuits and have recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. For
more information, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys
listed below. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: May Face Securities Class Action From App Users
------------------------------------------------------------------
ChapmanAlbin, a securities and investment law firm based in
downtown Cleveland, announced that it is gathering information and
investigating claims from Robinhood users who were restricted by
the app from buying certain stocks, including Gamestop and AMC,
both of which have become international stories after Reddit users
organized a short-squeeze on hedge funds, driving Gamestop's stock
price from $4 to more than $400 at its high in a matter of weeks.
Robinhood, a commission fee-free app favored by the retail
investors who drove the stocks' ascent, restricted trading on
Gamestop and other stocks mentioned frequently by the
WallStreetBets subreddit. The move not only has drawn the quick ire
of Congressional leaders like AOC who want an investigation into
Robinhood's decision but law firms interested in representing users
in a class action.
One has already been filed in New York and ChapmanAlbin is
exploring its own.
"Just a month ago, the Massachusetts securities regulators filed a
lawsuit against Robinhood for aggressive, dishonest marketing
practices geared toward inexperienced investors," Philip Vujanov,
an attorney at ChapmanAlbin, said in a statement. "Now, Robinhood
appears to be up to the same old tricks, recruiting social media
influencers to encourage individuals to sign up and fund a
Robinhood account and beginning purchasing shares of securities
such as Gamestop and AMC, with no consideration as to the
suitability of the purchases. To make matters worse, Robinhood
proceeded to place trading restrictions on the securities just a
day later."
ChapmanAlbin, which didn't immediately respond to a request from
comment from Scene, invites Robinhood users to contact Vujanov at
contact@chapmanlegal.com.[GN]
ROMANTIC DEPOT: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ROMANTIC DEPOT, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00727-SHS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' Website, https://romanticdepot.com/, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
ROMANTIC DEPOT, INC., operates the Romantic Depot online retail
store across the United States.[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, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@gottlieb.legal
ROSEN HOTELS: Former Employee Files Class Suit Over Unpaid Backpay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Fraser, writing for Orland Sentinel, reports that a former
employee of Rosen Hotels & Resorts has filed a class-action lawsuit
in federal court alleging the company owes backpay and benefits to
"approximately 1,000″ employees who were laid off or furloughed
near the start of the pandemic.
The suit, filed on Jan. 22, alleges Yolanda Turner, an employee
with the Rosen Inn at 6327 International Drive in Orlando, and
other employees at the company's nine Central Florida properties
were put on "a temporary furlough" on or about April 10. The suit
says the furlough lasted longer than six months without any
notification of employment status.
Federal law requires large employers to provide employees with 60
days notice of any mass layoffs. The suit, which was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is asking
for 60 days backpay and benefits, including healthcare coverage and
401K contributions, for Turner and other "similarly situated"
employees.
"This is a novel case," said attorney Stuart Millar of the New
York-based law firm Lankenau & Miller which is representing the
plaintiffs. "This is a company that ignored a (federal law)
provision that you need to keep employees notified."
A similar case using the same federal law on behalf of former
employees of Enterprise Holdings, the parent company for Enterprise
Rent-A-Car and others, is also ongoing in federal court in
Florida.
This suit could have major consequences for Central Florida, which
saw more than 10,000 hotel employees laid off in the pandemic.
Rosen Hotels filed a notice with the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity in July for the layoffs of 1,948 employees, a move
which founder Harris Rosen called at the time a "drastic decision."
In January, it was announced that the company laid off another 200
employees on New Year's Eve. Before the pandemic, Rosen reportedly
had more than 4,500 employees throughout their hotels.
In July, it was also reported that Rosen Hotels received more than
$6 million in federal pandemic assistance.
Rosen did not return requests for comment about this suit. The
company has 30 days to file an answer in court. [GN]
RUBBERMAID INCORPORATED: Turk Files Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubbermaid
Incorporated. The case is styled as Lori Marie Turk, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rubbermaid
Incorporated, Case No. 7:21-cv-00270-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12,
2021).
The case is brought over alleged fraud claims and is assigned to
Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
Rubbermaid Incorporated manufactures and distributes consumer
products. The Company markets its products including clothes
hangers, storage cabinets, and toys. Rubbermaid operates
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Chung, Esq.
43-22 216th Street
Bayside, NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com
S&J CRAZY: Franchi Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S&J CRAZY LIZARDS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC dba
MONROE'S OF PALM BEACH; SCOTT LIZZA; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-80130
(S.D. Fla., January 22, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay, illegal kickbacks,
unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff worked as a dancer/entertainer at the Defendants'
club in West Palm Beach, Florida between 2019 and 2021.
S&J Crazy Lizards Entertainment, LLC, doing business as Monroe's of
Palm Beach, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment
facility located at 1000 N. Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 209
North Miami, FL 33181-2536
Telephone: (305) 901-2209
Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and –
Alejandro Marin, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: alejandro@kristensenlaw.com
- and –
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: leigh@hughesellzey.com
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: LC3S Inc. Files Suit in Cal. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Sacramento.
The case is styled as LC3S Inc., on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. County of Sacramento, California Department of Alcohol
Beverage Control, County of Sacramento Department of Finance, Tax
Collection and Licensing, County of Sacramento Environmental
Management Department, and Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2021-00292281-CU-MC-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 12,
2021).
The case is brought over alleged miscellaneous complaints.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Kabateck, Esq.
KABATECK LLP
633 W 5th St., Ste 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2083
Telephone: (213) 217-5000
Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
SHELL ENERGY: Katz Files Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shell Energy North
America (US) LP. The case is styled as Samuel Katz, Lynne Rhodes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Shell Energy North America (US) LP, a California corporation, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00133-W-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales.
Shell Energy North America US, L.P. -- https://www.shell.us/ --
operates oil and gas field properties. The Company provides natural
gas, power and environmental products, risk management services,
and supply management services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ethan Mark Preston, Esq.
PRESTON LAW OFFICES
4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (972) 564-8340
Fax: (866) 509-1197
Email: ep@eplaw.us
SIGNIFY HEALTH: Faces Shep Suit Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA SHEP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNIFY HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00323 (E.D. Pa., January 23, 2021) brings this complaint as
a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant caused various calls with
a prerecorded voice to be transmitted to her cellular telephone
number ending in 6731 in an attempt to promote its services. The
Plaintiff never provided her 6731 number to the Defendant nor her
"prior express consent" to be contacted with a prerecorded voice on
the 6731 number, which has been registered on the National Do Not
Call Registry since September 23, 2011, the suit says.
Due to the Defendant's alleged conduct, the Plaintiff suffered
actual harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Thus,
the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited prerecorded
calling activity, and other relief that the Court deems necessary.
Signify Health, LLC provides in-home healthcare services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Tel: (800) 601-0808
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-628-5793
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
- and –
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 469-4496
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
SOAR COLLECTIVE: Faces TCPA Class Action Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, in an article for
the law firm's TCPAWorld, reports that another day, two more TCPA
class actions targeting the Cannabis industry. This time both cases
are in California (my backyard.)
First, in Ronny McConn v. Soar Collective, Inc. d/b/a Orange County
Cannabis Club the Plaintiff asserts that a dispensary hammered him
with text messages promoting their product, without consent. These
texts are pretty bad - full color images of tantalizing (for some)
bud and everything.
Ronny seeks to represent: "All persons in the United States who,
within four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent
a text message by or on behalf of Defendant, (2) using an automatic
telephone dialing system, (3) for the purpose of soliciting
Defendant's goods and services, (4) without prior express consent
of the recipient, or with the same manner of purported consent
Defendant claims to have obtained from Plaintiff, if any."
Second, in Aram Sargsyan v. Empire Twin Palms, LLC and A1, A CA
Commercial Cannabis Association, Inc. the Defendants are likewise
accused of peppering a young surgical technologist with unwanted
ads pushing pot. Aram seeks to represent: "All persons in the
United States who (1) received a text message to their cellular
phone number from Defendants, (2) within four years prior to the
filing of this action, (3) which text message was sent without the
recipient's prior express consent, and (4) which text message(s)
(a) advertised Defendants or (b) encouraged the recipient to make a
purchase from Defendants."
Both of these cases were just filed on Jan. 22 and continue a trend
the cannabis industry must make a note of. As we've been reporting,
the cannabis industry is under a full on assault by the TCPA
plaintiff's bar as the industry seems to be under the influence of
mind-altering substances when it comes to TCPA compliance. And it
hasn't gone well for either the dispensaries or the CRM and
platforms that support them to date.
We'll continue to keep an eye on these developments but, in the
meantime, let's hope cannabis industry participants are reading
this and looking to clean up their act. As the CEOs of Jornaya and
Active Prospect explained in our big Unprecedented podcast
interview -- the TCPA represents an existential threat to the
well-funded cannabis industry as the Plaintiff's bar is looking to
wake and rake-in the money, that is.
Will cannabis dispensaries (and their PE backers) be the new GREEN
goose that print millions in settlement dollars for ravenous
plaintiff's lawyers? Only time (and tcpaworld.com) will tell.
But to my (really the Archduke's) cannabis dispensary friends - is
"pot dealers" too informal a term? - there ARE resources to help.
Let's chat. [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of March 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-solarwinds-corporation-securities-litigation
QuantumScape Corporation (QS)
Class Period: 11/27/2020 - 12/31/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 8, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-quantumscape-corporation-securities-litigation
Penumbra, Inc. (PEN)
Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 12/15/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-penumbra-inc-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SWI) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, and docketed under 21-cv-00047, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired publicly traded
SolarWinds securities from February 24, 2020 through December 15,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased SolarWinds securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 5, 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.
SolarWinds purports to provide information technology (IT)
infrastructure management software products in the United States
and internationally. The Company 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 Complaint 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: (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, the Company would suffer
significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about SolarWinds's 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 are 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.
On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
disclosing that it had been the subject of hack on its Orion
monitoring products.
On this news, the Company's shares fell $3.93 per share, or 17%, to
close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, damaging
investors.
On December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating that,
last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the company
that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the
password 'solarwinds123.'" The article also disclosed that,
according to Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based
cybersecurity company Huntress, "days after SolarWinds realized
their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were
still available for download."
On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to
close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020, damaging
investors.
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.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hunt, Esq., Gregory Markel, Esq., Daphne Morduchowitz, Esq.,
Vincent Sama, Esq., and Catherine Schumacher, Esq., of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on January 4,
2021, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds"), SolarWinds' CEO and
CFO.[1] This is the first securities class action lawsuit to be
brought in 2021, and it underscores the continued significance of
cybersecurity issues for public companies, having been initiated
shortly after SolarWinds disclosed it was the victim of a
cyberattack. The SolarWinds complaint, and its implications, are
discussed below.
Background
Public companies that experience cybersecurity incidents are
increasingly targeted for securities class action lawsuits. These
cases face a high pleading threshold and most do not survive the
motion to dismiss stage. Nonetheless, plaintiffs will continue to
seek to hold companies accountable under the securities laws
following a cybersecurity breach.
SolarWinds
SolarWinds is a Delaware company that provides information
technology ("IT") infrastructure management software products in
the United States and internationally. It offers products to
monitor and manage network, system, desktop, application, storage,
and database and website infrastructures, on premise, via cloud or
in a hybrid IT infrastructure.
On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported that hackers alleged to be
working for the Russian government had gained access to emails at
the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments by interfering with
SolarWinds' software updates. SolarWinds filed an 8-K with the SEC
on December 14, 2020, disclosing a cyberattack that was "likely the
result of a highly sophisticated, targeted and manual supply chain
attack by an outside nation state." SolarWinds' shares then fell
17% on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Reuters further
reported SolarWinds had knowledge that "anyone could access
SolarWinds' update server by using the password ‘solarwinds123'"
and that the "malicious updates were still available for download"
days after SolarWinds realized its software had been compromised.
SolarWinds' stock price then fell an additional 8%.
The complaint, filed on behalf of investors who acquired SolarWinds
stock from February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020, asserts
claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges that SolarWinds'
2019 10-K and 2020 10-Q statements were false or misleading due to
the failure to disclose the vulnerability of SolarWinds' products
and servers to hackers.
Implications
The SolarWinds putative class action complaint indicates plaintiff
attorneys will continue to target public companies that experience
cybersecurity incidents in 2021. If the SolarWinds complaint
remains operative, it is unlikely to withstand a motion to dismiss
because, among other deficiencies, the allegations as to scienter
probably fall short of applicable federal pleading standards.
Nonetheless, the complaint is emblematic of the type of securities
lawsuits filed in response to cybersecurity incidents observed in
recent years that are likely to endure in 2021.
[1] Bremer v. SolarWinds Corporation et al., No. 1:21-cv-00002
(W.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2021). [GN]
SONA NANOTECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Sona Nanotech Inc. (OTC: SNANF)
between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important February 16, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Sona investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Sona class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1994.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) it was unreasonable for Sona to represent that it could
receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen test
within a month; (2) Sona's positive statements about its COVID-19
antigen test were unfounded as the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would deprioritize emergency use
authorization approval of Sona's antigen test finding it did not
meet "the public health need" criterion; (3) it was unreasonable
for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a short period of
time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either
the FDA or Health Canada; (4) Sona would have to withdraw its
submission for Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for
the marketing of its COVID-19 antigen test as it lacked sufficient
clinical data to support approval; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
16, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1994.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
STATE FARM: Faces $13MM Overcharging Class Action in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that State Farm
Life Insurance Co. owes about $13 million in attorneys' fees and
expenses in a class action brought by policyholders who
successfully argued that the company overcharged them, a federal
judge in Missouri ruled on Jan. 25.
The insurance giant was accused of breaching a contract with
policyholders by collecting "cost of insurance" fees based on
"non-mortality factors" that were not listed in their policy. The
company was hit with a $34 million judgment, which was affirmed in
June by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. [GN]
STEELE COUNTY, MN: Former Inmates File Class Action v. Sheriff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Granlund, writing for Owatonna People's Press, reports that
two former inmates at the Steele County Detention Center have filed
a class action lawsuit against Steele County Sheriff Lon Thiele for
allegedly using money in their jail accounts toward their
pay-to-stay fee balance.
Isaiah Coffey of Owatonna and Ron Jaeger of Rochester filed a class
action lawsuit in October against Thiele in his official capacity
as sheriff. A day following the filing as a civil case in Steele
County court, the cased was removed to federal court.
Thiele has requested a jury trial, which is currently scheduled for
May 2022. The Steele County Board has a closed session scheduled
during its meeting on Jan. 26 to discuss the case.
In the statement of claim, Coffey and Jaeger are claiming that upon
their transfers to Minnesota Department of Corrections custody,
Thiele kept money in both men's jail accounts and put it toward
their pay-to-stay fee. The pay-to-stay fee is part of Minnesota
state law that gives county boards the authority to charge any
persons confined in jail for any services provided during that
confinement period, including room, board, clothing, medical,
dental and any other correctional services. The current fee at the
Steele County Detention Center is $25 per day. The statement of
claim shows Coffey and Jaeger were incarcerated at SCDC throughout
2016-2018 either pending trial, under sentence for different
offenses or time that would be credited toward criminal penalties.
The statement of claim also reads that Thiele allegedly did not
make any determinations of the men's inability to pay or the undue
hardship it would create for them to remove the money from their
accounts. It also states that other than determining how much the
men allegedly owed, Thiele did not provide any process before
collecting the money from the accounts or sending the remaining
balance pay-to-stay balance to revenue recapture. According to the
aforementioned statutes, the chief executive officer of the local
correctional agency is required to make a determination of the
individual's ability to pay, whether payment would create undue
hardship for the individual or their family and if the prospects
for payment are poor, as well as any other extenuating
circumstance. After making this determination, the officer shall
waive costs if the individual is found unable to pay.
In Thiele's answer to the complaint, he admits that funds were
withheld from Coffey's account, but denies any funds were withheld
from Jaeger's account. Thiele also denied the allegations that he
did not make any determination of the men's abilities to pay or
that he did not provide any process before collecting the funds.
Thiele claims the two men both received invoices for their debts
upon departure from SCDC along with a notice that contested claims
should be submitted within 30 days and that neither of the men
submitted a contested claim or request for waiver of the fee,
according to court documents.
A settlement conference for the lawsuit is scheduled for Nov. 3.
Coffey, 23, was in custody at SCDC in 2018 after he was arrested
for possessing a firearm after being convicted or adjudicated
delinquent for crime of violence. Coffey pleaded guilty to the
felony charge in May 2018 and was sentenced to five years in
prison. Prior to his 2018 arrest, Coffey had pleaded guilty to a
2016 charge of second-degree drug possession. He was sentenced to
25 years probation in June 2017, but having violated his probation
with the firearm charge his sentence was amended in February 2018
to five years and eight months in prison. He is currently
incarcerated at MCF - Stillwater with an anticipated release date
of Sept. 1 of this year.
Jaeger, 37, was in custody at SCDC from June 2017 until November
2019 after he was arrested for attempted second-degree murder.
Jaeger pleaded not guilty to allegedly stabbing a woman known to
him eight times in her Owatonna home. He was found guilty of the
crime and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Jaeger also was convicted of felony fourth degree assault of a
correctional officer during his time at SCDC. He pleaded guilty in
November 2019 to throwing a cup of his urine at a female
correctional officer where some went into her mouth, according to
court documents. He was sentenced to one year and one day in prison
for the crime. [GN]
SUNRISE CREDIT: Eizikovitz Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZALMAN EIZIKOVITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00366 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 22, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a collection
letter from the Defendant on or about November 9, 2020 regarding an
alleged debt owed to Optimum, who also contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant's collection
letter stated "other charges", without providing an explanation,
which is a threat to collect an amount that is not provided in the
contract or by law. The Defendant allegedly misled and deceived the
Plaintiff into the belief that she falsely owed additional fees
that were not authorized by the agreement creating the debt not
permitted by law.
Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
TECHNY ADVISORS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Techny Advisors LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Techny Advisors LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00652 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Techny Advisors LLC -- https://www.giftsforyounow.com/ -- is
located in Woodridge, Illinois and is part of the Gift, Novelty &
Souvenir Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
TEMPO INTERACTIVE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tempo Interactive
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Tempo Interactive Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00662 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tempo -- https://tempo.fit/ -- is a home fitness platform,
combining equipment, training guidance and social motivation with
3D sensors and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Court Tosses False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that as of a January 19, 2021 order dismissing false
advertising claims against Topco Associates LLC's ‘Vanilla Almond
Milk', district court judges in the Southern District of New York
have now rejected, as a matter of law, five cases attempting to
claim that the word "vanilla" on food labeling falsely communicates
to a reasonable consumer that the flavor of the respective ice
cream and beverage products at issue derives entirely from real
vanilla. In each case, the court found it irrelevant that the
product may perhaps not comply with the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) "complex" labeling regulations implementing
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), finding "no
extrinsic evidence that the perceptions of ordinary consumers align
with these various labeling standards."
As we have reported, a court in the Northern District of
California, on December 1, 2020, granted a motion to dismiss in a
similar case, involving Westbrae Natural, Inc.'s organic
unsweetened vanilla soymilk. In addition to making the same
arguments as in the other ‘vanilla' cases, the plaintiff in
Westbrae offered a 2020 survey showing that 69.5% of 400 consumers
believed that "vanilla" on the label meant that the soymilk's
flavor comes exclusively from the vanilla bean, but the court found
that this survey alone does not satisfy the reasonable consumer
test.
In a January 19, 2021 motion to dismiss, Trader Joe's Company cites
to the Westbrae decision for precedent and argues that reasonable
consumers understand that "vanilla," in the context of labeling for
its 'Vanilla Almond Clusters' breakfast cereal, describes the
product's flavor, not its ingredients. The grocery chain also notes
that the plaintiff's counsel, Spencer Sheehan, has filed 110
lawsuits over vanilla flavoring in 18 months, and further suggests
that Mr. Sheehan rushed the Trader Joe's lawsuit in an attempt to
get ahead of dismissals in the "virtually identical" New York
cases.
Based on the relevant court rulings, the Trader Joe's lawsuit and
others, including a proposed class action filed in California in
September against McDonald's vanilla ice cream, could be the last
in a spate of class action lawsuits alleging deceptive and
misleading labels on vanilla products. [GN]
TRANSLINK: Ex-Transit Worker Files Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Macmahon and Hana Mae Nassar, writing for CityNews, report
that a class action lawsuit has been filed by a retired transit
worker after a TransLink data breach we learned about in December.
Claiming TransLink failed to responsibly manage his personal data
and that of others during the data breach, the retired worker, who
is only going by the initials G.D., is taking his former employer
to court, seeking compensation for anyone whose information was
accessed.
His lawyer, Sage Nematollahi with KND Complex Litigation, who is
filing the suit alongside Diamond and Diamond, says it's important
everyone affected receives appropriate compensation.
"And at the end of the day, we think this is a situation where
compensation to the affected individuals is appropriate, given all
the risk and cost to which they are exposed in the sense of losing
their privacy and losing their very valuable personal information,"
Nematollahi tells NEWS 1130.
"It's never a good feeling where someone's very sensitive personal
information is exposed. So that's issue number one. And secondly,
there are questions and concerns about the manner in which the
incident has been communicated to the public and the
stakeholders."
The Notice of Civil Claim against TransLink says the breach
"resulted in the loss, theft or compromise of highly sensitive
information of the Defendant's employees and its other stakeholders
including, but not limited to, their extremely sensitive and highly
valuable banking information."
It goes on to claim the data breach "occurred as a result of the
Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."
Nematollahi says his client is feeling vulnerable after everything
that's happened.
"But at the same time, we are trying to take steps to mitigate the
damages and the risk, and I think that's what needs to be done as
well, even on the part of TransLink to cooperate with the
stakeholders and affected individuals such that the scope of the
risk can be assessed and proper steps can be taken to mitigate the
risk going forward," he explains.
In a statement to NEWS 1130, TransLink spokesperson Gabrielle Price
says the transit authority is "aware of a civil claim" related to
the cyberattack.
"We are in the process of considering the claim, but will not be
providing further comment while this matter is before the courts,"
she says in a statement.
"Speaking generally about the cyber attack and our response to it,
however, prior to the attack we had many security measures in place
to secure the information of our past and present employees and
customers, and we will continue to explore ways to enhance this
security. TransLink proactively disclosed suspicious activity on
our network and associated impacts within hours of this incident
occurring. Throughout this incident, we have proactively and on an
ongoing basis disclosed as much accurate information as we can to
keep people informed as best as we are able at this point in an
ongoing forensic and police investigation."
TransLink was forced to shut down some of its services because of
the "suspicious network activity" reported on Dec. 2.
The minister in charge of the transit authority said two days later
that there was no information to indicate hackers gained access to
anyone's private financial information. However, George Heyman
noted he was not in a position to promise anyone that their
information wasn't accessed.
"The decisions about how to respond to a ransom request rests with
TransLink and the authorities and the police, with whom they're in
contact," Heyman said on Dec. 4. "It is not up to the province to
tell TransLink what the appropriate response is. I think it's
probably prudent for me to say no more on the matter. An
investigation is ongoing by both TransLink and other authorities."
Heyman added TransLink had done everything in its power to ensure
private information is secure.
Close to a month after the breach, TransLink warned hackers may
have "accessed" and "copied files from a restricted network drive,"
resulting in payroll disruptions for some TransLink, Coast Mountain
Bus Company, and Transit Police employees.
By Jan. 14, the transit authority said all employees' pay had been
squared up.
None of the allegations in the Notice of Civil Claim have been
proven in court.
-With files from Kathryn Tindale, Denise Wong, Ria Renouf, and
Miranda Fatur [GN]
TUBELOX TOYS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tubelox Toys, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tubelox Toys, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00663 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TubeLox -- https://tubelox.com/ -- is a life-sized building toy and
construction set for kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
UNILEVER PLC: TRESemme Products Cause Hair Loss, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that a
class action suit has been launched against Unilever in the US,
according to a report published by Fox News. The suit alleges that
a product from the UK FMCG manufacturer's TRESemme range causes
hair loss.
THE DETAILS "The products contain an ingredient or combination of
ingredients that causes significant hair loss and/or scalp
irritation upon proper application," the suit reads, per Fox News.
Specifically, Fox News says, the safety of preservative DMDM
hydantoin is disputed and Unilever is charged with failing to warn
consumers of the risks associated with the product's use.
"Consumer safety is always our top priority and all TRESemme
products are rigorously assessed to meet stringent safety
standards," the company said in a statement to Fox News. "While we
do not comment on pending litigation, DMDM hydantoin is widely used
in the beauty industry and has been confirmed by health authorities
to be a safe and effective preservative."
THE WHY? Unilever is said to have known that the ingredient in
question could contribute to hair loss since 2012 as it recalled
products from its Suave range in that year in light of complaints
that they caused hair loss. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Huisha-Huisha Files Suit in District of Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter T. Gaynor,
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et
al. The case is captioned as NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA and her
minor child, I.M.C.H.; VALERIA MACANCELA BERMEJO and her minor
daughter, B.A.M.M.; JOSAINE PEREIRA-DE SOUZA and her minor
children, H.N.D.S., E.R.P.D.S., M.E.S.D.S., and H.T.D.S.D.S. v.
PETER T. GAYNOR, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, in his
official capacity; Mark A. Morgan, Senior Official Performing the
Duties of the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), in his official capacity; William A. Ferrara, Executive
Assistant Commissioner, CBP Office Of Field Operations, in his
official capacity; Rodney S. Scott, Chief Of U.S. Border Patrol, in
his official capacity; Jonathan Fahey, Senior Official performing
the duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; ALEX M. AZAR, II, SECRETARY
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, in his official capacity; and ROBERT
R. REDFIELD, DR.,DIRECTOR OF THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND
PREVENTION, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00100-EGS
(D.D.C., Jan. 12, 2021).
The lawsuit seeks judicial review of agency decision involving
personal injury claims.
The case is assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
Scott Michelman, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 15th Street NW, Ste 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 601-4266
Facsimile: (202) 457-0805
E-mail: artspitzer@gmail.com
smichelman@acludc.org
- and -
Jamie L. Crook, Esq.
CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 565-4877
Facsimile: (415) 581-8824
E-mail: crookjamie@uchastings.edu
- and -
Celso Perez, Esq.
ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 905-8953
E-mail: cperez@aclu.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Sean Michael Tepe, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2533
Facsimile: (202) 252-2599
E-mail: sean.tepe@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Beck Labor Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN BECK and BIENVENIDA SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a
California corporation, Case No. CGC-21-589038 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 12, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code due to unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid missed
meal and rest breaks wages, inaccurate itemized wage statements,
unreimbursed business related expenses, and unfair business
practices.
Ms. Salazar has taught clinical courses in Defendant's Sacramento
Nursing program in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
Mr. Beck has taught Behavioral Finance for the Defendant in the
Spring semesters in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
University of San Francisco is a private not-for-profit Jesuit
Catholic university.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMOND LAW, P.C.
11780 W. Sample Rd., Suite 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Announces Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL), ("Velocity" or the
"Company"), a leading provider of small balance investor loans,
announced that a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit brought
against the Company, its Directors at the time of the Company's
IPO, its former controlling shareholder, and its IPO underwriters
was granted by the judge presiding over the case (the "Dismissal
Order").
Chris Farrar, President and CEO, stated, "We are very pleased that
the judge in the case agreed the lawsuit was without merit and
granted our request for dismissal. Velocity takes its disclosure
obligations seriously and will continue to be transparent with
investors."
As previously disclosed in the Company's SEC filings, the Company,
certain of its directors at the time of the IPO, its former
controlling shareholder and its IPO underwriters were named as
defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Edward A. Berg v. Velocity Financial, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 2:20-cv-06780-RGK-PLA (filed on July 29, 2020). The
Dismissal Order was entered on January 25, 2021.
The Company and its directors were represented in this matter by
the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
About Velocity Financial, Inc.
Based in Westlake Village, California, Velocity is a vertically
integrated real estate finance company that originates and manages
investor loans secured by 1-4 unit residential rental and small
commercial properties. Velocity originates loans nationwide across
an extensive network of independent mortgage brokers it has built
and refined over 15 years. [GN]
VERY GREAT: Faces Nisbett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. VERY GREAT INC., D/B/A COURANT, Case No.
1:21-cv-00236-SHS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website, https://staycourant.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
Website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.
Very Great Inc., d/b/a Courant, is a seller of design-driven
wireless chargers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
VOICE OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins at courthousenews reports that in a federal class
action filed, Voice of America employees sued the international
multimedia broadcaster for refusing to classify them as full-time
employees despite working more than 40 hours a week and completing
tasks outside those specified in their contract.
The employees, who worked at Voice of America as independent
contractors, said they were lured into purchase order agreements
which gave VOA a one-year renewal option.
In the case of the lead plaintiff, Jason Lambro, Voice of America
renewed his purchase order agreement for 19 consecutive years --
and never made significant changes to his contract.
Lambro, of Nottingham, Maryland, began working as a studio
technician for Voice of America's headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
in 2002. According to the complaint filed in Washington, Lambro and
other contractors allege that Voice of America required them to
work in other departments outside those specified in their
contracts, controlled their schedules and required them to remain
on-call at all times.
The class action members say that anyone who refused their
supervisor's demands were eventually fired.
Despite working more than 40 hours a week, they claim they were not
given benefits or overtime pay, as are required under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
"VOA willfully misclassified Plaintiff and the Class Members as
independent contractors to minimize costs and avoid violating its
congressional hiring authority," the complaint states.
The lawsuit comes as Voice of America is already in the spotlight
for a flurry of scandals, mostly surrounding Michael Pack, the
chief executive of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) --
Voice of America's parent company.
Pack resigned at President Joe Biden's request amid a number of
complaints, one of which says he spent $4 million investigating
current and former employees to reshape USAGM. The whistleblower
said it was an attempt to hire journalists and officials who would
promote former President Donald Trump ahead of the presidential
election.
Trump appointed Pack, a conservative filmmaker, in June 2020 after
he was recommended by Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief
strategist.
During his turbulent seven-month tenure, Pack accused the networks
of being receptive to foreign spies and fired senior officials who
he thought had an anti-Trump bias.
After Pack's resignation, Biden named Kelu Chao as Pack's interim
replacement and dismissed VOA's director and deputy director.
But the concerns with Voice of America and its parent company seem
to begin far before Pack's tenure: the class action lawsuit states
that Voice of America was aware that independent contractors should
be classified as full-time employees, as the Inspector General of
the Department of State audited USAGM in 2014 and brought their
misclassification to their attention.
According to the complaint, USAGM ignored the audit's findings.
Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and VOA did not immediately
respond to a request for comment. [GN]
VOYAGER THERAPEUTIC: Holzer & Holzer Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Voyager
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Voyager" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VYGR)
securities between June 1, 2017 and November 9, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's VY-HTT01 IND submission to the FDA lacked key
information regarding certain chemistry, manufacturing and controls
("CMC") matters; (2) the Company's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was
therefore deficient; (3) the Company had thus materially overstated
the likelihood of FDA approval for VY-HTT01 based on the IND
submission; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased shares of Voyager securities between June 1, 2017
and November 9, 2020 and suffered significant losses on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at
mdees@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at
lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or
through www.holzerlaw.com to discuss your legal rights.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates
its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000,
Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by
fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
WALMART INC: Gabertan Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLIE GABERTAN, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-2-08908-2, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan.
12, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-05032-TLF to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that on April 7, 2020, he received a single
text message that stated, "WalmartRx -- Are you 60+, high-risk,
self-quarantining, or have COVID-19 symptoms? Use curbside pickup
or have your Rx mailed." The Plaintiff, who seeks to represent a
class of all persons who are Washington residents, contends that
this text message violated Washington's Consumer Electronic Mail
Act and asserts a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.
Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail corporation that operates a
chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery
stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Macee B. Utecht, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 373-2791
E-mail: mutecht@cozen.com
- and -
Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-2000
E-mail: mslawe@cozen.com
mmctigue@cozen.com
- and -
E. Marie Bussey-Garza, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1717 Main Street, Suite 3100
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 462-3085
E-mail: mbussey-garza@cozen.com
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Aguilera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS
INC. The case is styled as Jose Aguilera, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS INC.,
a California corporation, Case No. BCV-21-100160 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Kern Cty., Jan. 25, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Bolthouse Farms, founded 1915 in Grant, Michigan, --
https://www.bolthouse.com/ -- is a vertically integrated farm
company specializing in refrigerated beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun A. Markley, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway – 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619/325.0492
Email: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
[*] Bennett Jones Attorneys Review Notable Class Action Updates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Eizenga, Esq. -- eizengam@bennettjones.com -- Cheryl
Woodin, Esq. -- oodinc@bennettjones.com -- Ranjan Agarwal, Esq. --
agarwalr@bennettjones.com -- and Joseph Blinick, Esq., of Bennett
Jones LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that instability and
uncertainty were the two constants in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic
uprooted social norms and challenged businesses. The long range
impact of that instability and uncertainty remains to be seen. For
different reasons, instability and uncertainty governed class
actions in Canada in 2020 as well. A series of landmark decisions
and legislative amendments impacted key substantive and procedural
areas of the law, moving in both plaintiff - and defendant -
friendly directions. While the long range impact of these
developments remains to be seen, the objective is certain: to
clarify, simplify and streamline not only what the law is but how
it is to be applied through the procedural vehicle of the class
action.
The Class Action Practice Group at Bennett Jones continued its
tradition of involvement in the year's most significant cases,
focusing on practical solutions where they are possible and seeking
clarity from the courts where it is needed. As a group, we continue
to work to earn our reputation for breadth and depth in the class
actions practice and the ability to deliver critical victories for
our clients in the nation's highest courts.
We review notable developments in Canadian class actions in 2020,
and provide an outlook to critical areas of importance in 2021. We
begin by focusing on the effects that COVID-19 has directly had on
class action litigation. Since the pandemic began in the early
months of 2020, more than 30 COVID-related class actions have been
started in Canada, a number likely to grow as we move throughout
2021. We then turn to the important decision of the Supreme Court
of Canada in Atlantic Lottery Corp. v Babstock, which ended the
16-year-long debate on the use of waiver of tort as an independent
cause of action. Next, we survey the recent amendments to Ontario's
Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which have changed the certification
test in Ontario and made other changes that aim to streamline the
class action process in Ontario.
We also discuss the much anticipated decisions of the Supreme Court
in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, which has reformulated the
approach taken to mandatory arbitrations clauses, and 1688782
Ontario Inc. v Maple Leaf Foods Inc., which clarified the approach
to the duty of care analysis in negligence claims for "pure
economic loss". We then turn our attention to the precedent setting
decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Laliberte v Day, the
first contested carriage motion in the Federal Court. Finally, we
end with a look at other notable developments in class actions
provided by appellate courts in 2020, including key developments
relating to class action settlements.
As we look forward to 2021, we remain committed to navigating the
intersection of the law that impacts our clients and the way that
it is delivered in and out of the courtroom in the context of class
actions. [GN]
[*] Class Action Mulled Against Capitol Rioters Over Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Leshan, writing for WUSA9, reports that a king of class
action lawsuits is proposing a novel way to deter future attacks on
the Capitol: sue one or more of the rioters and saddle them with
millions of dollars in damages that could follow them for the rest
of their lives.
Anyone from a Capitol visitor to a journalist, staffer, police
officer or a member of Congress could be a plaintiff.
"You can hold any one rioter liable for the damages of all the
rioters," George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf
said.
Banzhaf's been called a legal flamethrower. He and his students
have won big judgments over the last 50 years on cases ranging from
potty parity to a former vice president taking bribes. The Jan. 6
rioters at the Capitol are his latest target.
"I think juries in Washington are not going to be sympathetic to
the people who took over the Capitol," he said.
Federal prosecutors have charged 135 people so far. Investigators
said hundreds more surged into the building.
But The Washington Post reports the Justice Department may not
charge all of them.
"I think that's wrong," Banzhaf said. "I think they shouldn't get
off scot-free."
But a class-action lawsuit against the rioters could send a
powerful message. Anyone who was terrorized at the Capitol -- even
potentially the police officers who battled the insurrectionists --
could sue any of the rioters for all of the damage.
According to Banzhaf, each of the rioters could be held liable for
all of the damage, from the property destruction to the emotional
suffering inflicted on the people who feared for their lives.
"If you're facing a multimillion-dollar judgment which will follow
you the rest of your life and result in garnishment of your wages,
possible loss of your house and other possessions, I think a lot of
people are going to think twice before they decide, 'Yeah, let's
have a riot,'" he said.
Long prison sentences might send the message, but if that doesn't
work, Banzhaf said hit them in the wallet.
He said the same kind of class action suit could be filed against
racial justice protestors who may have rioted and destroyed
buildings and property over the summer.
"I think whether it's a right-wing riot or a left-wing riot, they
should be punished," he said. "The criminal law isn't doing it, so
civil law can come in." [GN]
[*] Pandemic Personnel Issues Prompt Wage & Hour Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael H. Bernick, writing for Law.com, reports that several
pandemic-related personnel issues are spurring a rise in lawsuits
against production and midstream companies, particularly wage &
hour class actions certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Most of these cases are focused on the misclassification of
employees as an Independent Contractor (IC) and challenges to "day
rate" compensation structures. Because classes have had mixed
results in getting certified, depending on the court they are in,
these suits are best fought at the certification stage.
Businesses can reduce their FLSA risk by properly evaluating
workers, documenting their compensation structures, and modifying
contracting practices. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***